SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     



J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):348P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ha, J.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Bom, H.-S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ha, J.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Bom, H.-S.

Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Solid Tumors

Clinical Diagnosis-Solid Tumors Posters

In gastric cancer patients with normal CEA level, which has better clinical impact on detection of recurrence, F-18 FDG-PET/CT or contrast enhanced abdominal CT?: According to serial pattern of CEA

Jung-Min Ha1, Shin Young Jeong1, Young-Soon Seo1, Seong-Young Kwon1, Ari Chong1, Jung-Joon Min1, Ho-Chun Song1 and Hee-Seung Bom1

1 Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangu-ju, South Korea

1472

Objectives: We aimed to assess the validity of F-18 FDG-PET/CT (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced abdominal MDCT (CECT) for detecting recurred gastric cancer patients with normal serum CEA level (<5ng/ml) according to serial CEA patterns.

Methods: One hundred-thirty-five patients (Male 83, mean age; 59.2 y) had undergone surgery for gastric cancer and performed CEA, PET/CT and CECT for restaging. Seventy-nine patients, who had serially normal CEA level before imaging studies, were included. According to serial CEA pattern, patients were divided into 2 groups; upward pattern (UP), downward pattern (DP). Recurrence was confirmed by pathology or by clinical follow-up.

Results: Among the 79 patients, the final diagnosis of recurred gastric cancer was established in 39 lesions in 24 patients (30.4%). The diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT and CT were 83.5% and 73.4%, respectively. In each group, tumor recurrence was finally diagnosed in 48.2% (UP:27/56), 31.6% (DP: 12/38). Tumor recurrence was found more commonly in UP group. In UP group, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT and CECT were 84%, 92.3%, 88.2% and 72.0%, 69.0%, 70.6%. In DP group, 50.0%, 86.2%, 74.4% and 92.8%, 75.8%, 81.4%. In UP group, the validity of PET/CT was significantly higher than CECT (p=0.03), but in DP group, there was no significant difference between PET/CT and CECT (p=0.38). In addition, PET/CT was revealed 2 distant bony metastase, 1 lung metastasis, 1 synchronous malignancy.

Conclusions: PET/CT was valuable imaging tool to detect recurrence in gastric patient with normal CEA. Specially in UP group, PET/CT revealed more higher diagnostic accuracy than CECT. In these patients, PET/CT must be recommended.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ha, J.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Bom, H.-S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ha, J.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Bom, H.-S.