Open Access

Focal colorectal uptake in 18FDG-PET/CT: maximum standard uptake value as a trigger in a semi-automated screening setting

  • Wolfgang Luboldt1, 2Email author,
  • Baerbel Wiedemann3,
  • Sebastian Fischer1,
  • Boris Bodelle1,
  • Hans Joachim Luboldt2,
  • Frank Grünwald4 and
  • Thomas J. Vogl1
European Journal of Medical Research201621:2

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-016-0195-z

Received: 11 October 2014

Accepted: 4 January 2016

Published: 9 January 2016

Abstract

Background

Focal colorectal uptake in 18FDG-PET/CT may be associated with a malignancy and can be quantified. This provides the basis for an automatic trigger threshold above which cases are flagged for colonoscopic evaluation and below which for individual assessment.

Purpose

To determine the lowest maximum standard uptake (SUVmax) in colorectal cancer that could be used as a threshold to trigger endoscopic evaluation and to evaluate whether the SUVmax needs to be further normalised to a priori known extrinsic factors.

Methods

The SUVmax was measured in 54 colorectal carcinomas and correlated with gender, age, blood glucose level, injected activity, body mass index and time to scan using t test or correlation coefficients (Pearson or Spearman, according to distribution).

Results

There was no correlation between SUVmax and any of the extrinsic factors mentioned above. The lowest SUVmax value was 5 [mean ± SD (range): 11.1 ± 4.8 (5.0–24.6)].

Conclusion

In contrast to most other screening techniques, semi-automation in colorectal screening seems possible with PET/CT. This opens the door for further study into the feasibility of automated screening. Independent from extrinsic factors, an SUVmax ≥5.0 in a focal colorectal uptake in 18FDG-PET/CT should automatically trigger for endoscopic evaluation, if not contraindicated. Cases with SUVmax <5 should be assessed individually before referral for endoscopy. Thus, more interpretation time could be spent on those cases with a lower uptake and more ambiguous diagnosis.

Keywords

PET/CTColonColorectal cancerPolypScreeningMulti-organ screening

Background

18FDG-PET/CT is widely used in the detection and monitoring of most cancer entities. It provides images of malignant cell proliferation via the glucose uptake fuelling it thus combining glucose metabolism data with morphology. It is already successfully used for staging, restaging and follow-up, changing therapeutic management in up to 36 % of cases [1] and avoiding future tests in up to 91 % [2]. It was proposed for screening as early as 1997 [3] closely in line with CT colonography [4] and MR colonography [5]. The technique has progressed since that time and continues to do so. The only organs that remain a diagnostic challenge for 18FDG-PET/CT are the colon, breast, stomach, urinary tract and the carcinomas for which there are specific tumour markers [prostate-specific antigen (PSA), alpha fetoprotein (AFP), calcitonin, chromogranin A].

There have been no large studies to compare PET/CT with colonoscopy with respect to accuracy in the screening of colorectal cancer and its precursors.

PET/CT has three main advantages over colonoscopy and CT/MR colonography:
  1. 1.

    It is completely non-invasive—it avoids cleansing and distension of the colon and as such is more readily accepted than colonoscopy by the population.

     
  2. 2.

    It allows for early detection of extra-colonic diseases, a valuable side-benefit.

     
  3. 3.

    Its analysis can be more easily automated due to the 3D digitisation of glucose metabolism with high contrast between focal accumulation and normal distribution.

     

The latter advantage requires the definition of a threshold to automatically trigger further diagnosis, by endoscopic evaluation in this case. In contrast to a cut-off, which separates benign and non-benign and thereby defines the outcome for both sides, a threshold value automatically triggers the outcome only for the group above the threshold. Individual and subjective analysis is then applied to those cases that fall below the threshold. This is already used in PSA screening in which transrectal palpation and/or ultrasound determines the decision to investigate PSA-negative carcinomas [6]. Safeguards must be devised for the group below the threshold, in order to minimise false negatives, in particular to facilitate the detection of small tumours.

The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) is currently the most promising candidate to trigger further diagnosis and therapy as it reflects tumour vitality. Thus, the SUV is used to refine chemo- and radiation therapy according to vitality—the rationale behind interim staging with PET/CT [7, 8].

A threshold used to trigger colonoscopic evaluation for the majority of cancers should be independent of extrinsic effects. Thus, the purpose of the study was (a) to evaluate whether the SUVmax requires further normalisation and (b) to determine the lowest SUVmax to warrant automated referral for endoscopy.

Methods

In a retrospective study approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer imaged with 18FDG-PET/CT before the onset of therapy were retrieved from a database search. Any patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer but a negative PET/CT would thus also have been included in the study.

PET/CT was performed 75 ± 14 min after injection of 329 ± 46 MBq FDG on a 16-slice PET/CT (Biograph 16, Siemens Medical Solutions) from the skull base through to the mid-thigh in 7–8 table positions each of 3-min duration. For attenuation correction, a low-dose (<1 mSv) CT was performed with 10 mAs, 120 kV, 16 × 1.5 mm collimation, 0.42 s tube rotation time and 6 mm/s table feed. CT images were reconstructed with 2.5-mm-thick slices. PET images were iteratively reconstructed using ordered subset expectation maximisation (OSEM) with 6 iterations, 4 subsets, 5 mm full width at half maximum (FWHM) smoothing and 168 × 168 reconstruction matrix for 70-cm gantry.

The SUVmax was measured in the colorectal tumour. The SUVmax is normalised for injected activity per body weight according to the formula: SUVmax = maximum VOI activity (Bq/ml)/dose injected per patient’s weight (Bq/g) with g = ml for a tissue density of 1 g/ml.

The association of SUVmax with T-stage, gender, age, blood glucose level, injected activity and time to scan (distribution phase) was analysed using t test or correlation coefficients (Pearson or Spearman according to distribution). Statistical analysis was performed using the standard software package SPSS Inc., version 16.0, Chicago, USA.

Results

Fifty-four patients (16 female, 38 male) aged 43–91 years (mean: 67 ± 10 years) were included in the study. Referring reasons for PET/CT were initial staging (n = 35) (Fig. 1), staging of another carcinoma with incidental detection of colorectal cancer as second cancer (n = 17) (Figs. 2, 3) and search for the primary cancer in cancer-of-unknown primary (CUP) syndrome (n = 2).
Fig. 1

Colorectal cancer with solitary hepatic and lung metastases in the initial staging. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) of PET captured in the coronal projection of the 360°-rotation (a), axial slices of PET (b), CT (c) and PET/CT (d) and colonoscopy (e). The rotating MIPs of PET, here captured in coronal projection (a), enable clear depiction of colorectal cancer, here with a maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of 6.9, at the first view in contrast to CT (c) and colonoscopy (e) both of which are invasive, require bowel preparation and time consuming step-by-step analysis

Fig. 2

Colorectal cancer (arrow) as an incidental finding in the PET/CT restaging of oesophageal cancer with new lymph node and hepatic metastases. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) of PET captured in the coronal projection of the 360°-rotation (a), axial slices of PET (b), CT (c) and PET/CT (d) and colonoscopy (e). Note that the 18F-FDG-filled bladder can obscure carcinomas on the coronal maximum intensity projection (MIP) (a). Rotating MIPs or scrolling through axial PET slices (b) is mandatory to detect such carcinomas. The colorectal cancer, here with an SUVmax of 9.7, is clearly depicted on the axial PET images (b) in contrast to CT (c)

Fig. 3

Colorectal cancer (arrow) in the initial staging. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) of PET captured in the coronal projection of the 360°-rotation (a), axial slices of PET (b), CT (c) and PET/CT (d) and colonoscopy (e). As in Fig. 2, rotating the maximum intensity projection (MIP) or scrolling through axial PET slices (b) is mandatory to detect carcinomas behind the urinary bladder. PET clearly depicts the colorectal cancer, here with an SUVmax of 6.1

In the tested ranges, there was no correlation between SUVmax and the extrinsic factors listed in Additional file 1: Table S1 [SUVmax vs. age (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.074), SUVmax vs. body mass index (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.148), SUVmax vs. injected activity (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.185), SUVmax vs. glucose level (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.047) and SUVmax vs. time to scan (Spearman correlation coefficient = −0.004)]. The SUVmax did not significantly differ among the various T-stages (all p values >0.05) (Fig. 4). The lowest p value was 0.07 between stages T2 and T4.
Fig. 4

Maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) in relation to the TNM stage. All values were greater than 5, and there was no correlation between the SUVmax and the tumour stage in the 27 cases with available TNM stage data (Additional file 1: Table S1). [Note: The patient with the minimum SUVmax = 5 (Nr. 32 in Additional file 1: Table S1) is not included. The operation was performed outside the TNM stage and the data were thus not available]

The lowest SUVmax value was 5 [mean ± SD (range): 11.1 ± 4.8 (5.0–24.6)] (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Discussion

Semi-automation in colorectal screening seems feasible with PET/CT. A focal colorectal FDG accumulation with SUVmax ≥5 should automatically trigger a referral for colonoscopy leaving the cases with SUVmax <5 for individual interpretation. Even if the SUVmax varies with scanner type, the semi-automation approach seems robust; a possible scanner-related shift of this threshold value will be compensated by subjective interpretation as for any other focal colorectal uptake below the trigger threshold.

Normalisation to a priori known extrinsic factors

We found no correlation between the SUVmax and a priori known extrinsic factors that could bias the SUVmax measurements (Additional file 1: Table S1). This suggests that the SUVmax does not need to be further normalised for these a priori known extrinsic factors. The lack of correlation between the SUVmax and the time to scan suggests that the SUVmax is independent of the time of scanning in the tested range 59–112 min (mean: 75 ± 14 min) after injection. Further study is needed using dynamic PET to test intra-individually at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min to ascertain which time interval between injection and imaging is optimal for the detection of malignant colorectal uptakes. It has recently been found that normalisation to the blood pool in the aorta provides a means of correcting for scan time dependence [9]. This requires further verification. The lack of correlation between the SUVmax and activity in the tested range 94–395 MBq (mean: 329 ± 46 MBq) suggests that the activity can be reduced, possibly independent of weight, to 200 MBq. This is of interest in situations where PET/CT may be offered to asymptomatic individuals instead of screening colonoscopy where endoscopy is contraindicated, refused or not possible to complete.

Benefit vs. radiation risk of PET/CT

To be justified, the benefit of PET/CT in early detection must compensate for its radiation risk. With 200 MBq activity the total radiation exposure can be reduced to less than two times natural background radiation (200 MBq × 6.7 mSv/350 MBq [10] + 0.8 mSv [11] = 4.6 < 2 × 2.4 = 4.8 mSv, assuming a linear relationship between MBq and mSv if 350 MBq results in 6.7 mSv [10]). The dose issue is especially significant if PET/CT is used for screening before the onset of symptoms in healthy subjects. The purely hypothetical [12] and delayed radiation risk is compensated if PET/CT detects 3 % of the colorectal cancers which occur in 0.9 % of cases (colonoscopic prevalence in a screening setting) [13] (x % sensitivity × 0.9 % prevalence >0.005 %/mSv [14] radiation risk × 4.8 mSv radiation exposure; with x % >3 %). In this calculation of the minimum required sensitivity (x % > 3 %), the concurrent detection of extra-colonic cancer entities and advanced adenomas, as well as other serious conditions such as cardiovascular disease, were not taken into account thus underestimating the overall benefit of PET/CT. Furthermore, there is a 10- to 40-year delay [15] between the hypothetical induction and development of radiation-induced cancer; the natural history of a missed cancer, had PET/CT not been performed, is more severe than the natural history of a hypothetical and delayed induced cancer, had PET/CT been performed. Additionally, the benefit-to-risk ratio of PET/CT increases with age due to the decreasing radiation risk and increasing incidence of cancer. This is in contrast to colonoscopy, where the rate of complication increases with age, while the prophylactic meaning of a polypectomy decreases. This is especially relevant as colorectal screening is recommended for individuals up to 70 years of age [16].

Determination of the optimum SUVmax threshold

In our study, we found the minimum SUVmax in 54 colorectal carcinomas to be 5 thus determining the threshold. There are only a few studies which showed an SUVmax lower than 5 for colorectal cancer. Sarikaya et al. [17] reported four carcinomas that were detected with SUVmax <4.5, of which three were mucinous. Peng et al. [18] reported a range in SUVmax from 3.1 to 28 which included two mucinous carcinomas. The low cellularity of mucinous carcinomas may explain the low SUVmax. A meta-analysis regarding the SUVmax of colorectal cancer is not possible because the SUVmax was not always listed for each carcinoma. When SUVmax is used as the sole trigger, and not in combination with other factors, an SUVmax threshold of 5 would cover 96 % (215/224) of FDG-positive colorectal cancers (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4) [1731], leaving only 4 % of positive cases requiring individual interpretation.

False negatives (FN) (carcinomas)

Besides the 4 % of PET-positive colorectal cancer cases that fall below the threshold, some cancer cases are completely PET negative. The rate of PET-negative cancer cases may be at least 5 % as suggested by studies looking at all patients who underwent PET/CT followed by colonoscopy within a short period of time [25, 30, 32]. On the other hand, the miss-rate of optical colonoscopy can be estimated at a worst case of 2.9 %, assuming that all 2.9 % of the so-called interval cancers occurring within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy were missed and not newly developed [33].

The issue of false negatives must be viewed in context. The vast majority of the German population currently does not come forward for screening due in large part to the invasive nature of colonoscopy. Between 2002 and 2008, 2,821,392 screening colonoscopies were performed across Germany which represents 15.5 and 17.2 % of all eligible men and women, respectively, from the age group 55–74 years [13]. Thus, approximately 80 % of the target group did not take advantage of the colonoscopy screening programme during this 6-year screening interval. Although the acceptance rate is higher in some other countries, such as the US, there is a widespread reluctance on the part of the population to come forward for colonoscopy-based screening. Shortcomings in alternative screening techniques must be balanced against the significant number of tumours which progress to a more advanced stage due to this very low acceptance of colonoscopy screening. PET/CT should not replace colonoscopy screening in the minority of individuals who assent, but provide an attractive alternative for the majority who refuse. Thus, if colonoscopy is refused, PET/CT needs to be compared with faecal occult blood test (FOBT) and not with colonoscopy.

False positives (FP)

FDG-enriched stool in the caecum is the most common cause of false-positive FDG accumulation [11]. FDG excretion into the small bowel and accumulation in the caecum during the 60-min interval between injection and imaging may explain this observation. The typical location in the caecum in conjunction with centric distribution and air-typical CT values, which indicate air inclusions, helps to differentiate FDG-enriched stool from a wall-adherent eccentric mass. Although Van Heoij et al. [31] recently found that the SUVmax in 404 focal colorectal uptakes was significantly higher for cancer (p < 0.001) than for all other types of lesions (advanced adenoma, non-advanced adenoma and benign lesions), Keyzer et al. [34] showed that the SUVmax alone does not differentiate true- from false-positive colorectal FDG foci. The metabolic volume also failed to differentiate TP from FP [34, 35].

As the SUVmax in premalignant/malignant and physiological/benign colorectal FDG accumulation is indistinct, the clear separation (cut-off) between TP and FP seems to be unattainable with SUVmax alone. We therefore defined the trigger as automating the decision above a threshold only (semi-automated analysis). Given the relatively low prevalence of focal colorectal uptakes (3.6 %) but the relatively high risk of these being malignant or premalignant (68 %) [36], the benefit of maximising the sensitivity with semi-automated analysis seems to justify a lower specificity with more FPs. If colonoscopy is the worst consequence of an FP, these patients would not be disadvantaged compared to their outcome had they taken up the current screening programme [16, 37]. In comparison to colonoscopy, the 1.5 % rate of FP in PET/CT [36] with consecutive colonoscopy is far lower than the 26.5 % rate of false-positive polypectomies, several polypectomies per person not counted [13].

Partial volume effects: a drawback of digitisation

Averaging within a volume pixel (voxel) of a finite edge length is a drawback of digitisation. Smaller lesions in the range of only view voxels might not be visible due to spatial and temporal averaging within one voxel (partial volume artefacts) [38]. The resultant blurring might reduce the overall contrast so that the lesion is not delineated. However, a very high uptake—the so-called hot spot phenomenon, as known from melanoma—might compensate for a larger voxel size and even depict lesions within the range of the voxel resolution [currently: 95 mm3 (=0.095 ml) based on 400 × 400 matrix reconstruction]. However, this potential inferiority in voxel resolution compared to optical colonoscopy might be compensated by a shorter screening interval (e.g. 5 years as for CT colonography [37]). This may be completely unnecessary when the long lead time of 10 years in the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence is taken into account [3942] and the fact that therapy in asymptomatic (lower stage) colorectal cancer is mostly curative. Furthermore, it must be emphasised that lower voxel resolution can easily be compensated for by a shorter screening interval, in contrast to a lower screening acceptance rate which cannot be compensated for.

Extrapolation to advanced adenoma

There is some evidence that PET/CT failed to detect around half of cases with advanced adenoma [43]. The study was performed between 2000 and 2009 using now outdated PET and PET/CT technology. Since then, the spatial resolution has improved from 4.5 mm to almost 2 mm today, for example. In an interval screening programme, it is the accuracy of the programme and not of the single test which matters. Furthermore, the consequence of a missed tiny adenoma is unclear if the cancer can still be curatively resected at the consecutive screening, if indeed the adenoma develops to cancer at all. The mismatch in prevalence between advanced adenoma (6.4 %) and colorectal cancer (0.9 %) [13] suggests that not all advanced adenomas proceed to cancer. It is assumed that a patient with advanced adenoma at age 55–65 has a greater than 50 % chance of developing colon cancer [44]. The potential lack in screening sensitivity may be compensated by reducing the interval between examinations (for example from 10 to 5 years as proposed for CT colonography [37]), but a low screening acceptance rate cannot be compensated.

To date, we have neither included advanced adenoma nor correlated the FDG uptake with the KI 67 index as markers for proliferation. We measured FDG uptake versus TNM stage, however, and found no correlation (Fig. 4). Pending further study, we might extrapolate that the trigger SUVmax ≥5 is also valid for advanced adenoma, depending on the growth rate. The hypothesis that the SUVmax correlates with the growth rate seems correct; glucose provides the energy for proliferation and is supported by the relationship between pre-operative 18FDG uptake and epidermal growth factor receptor [45]. Also, 18FDG-PET detects all cancers in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis [46]. This is still speculative, however, pending a larger study. Recently, Na et al. [47] proposed an SUVmax = 5.8 as optimal cut-off to identify a malignancy or high-grade dysplasia but warned that colonoscopy should be performed above an SUVmax = 2.5 to avoid missing a malignancy or high-grade dysplasia. This is in line with the semi-automation we propose: an SUVmax ≥5 should automatically trigger a referral for colonoscopy leaving the cases with SUVmax <5 for individual interpretation.

Case for PET/CT screening

A great deal of expertise and resources are currently invested in establishing, testing and improving mono-organ screening methods. Screening programmes are currently in place for the early detection of oncological, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases including prostate, lung, colorectal, ovarian [48] and breast cancer, as well as arteriosclerosis, aortic aneurysm and osteoporosis. PET/CT offers the possibility of replacing most mono-organ screening methods with a single multi-organ screening exam. A single PET/CT screening appointment lasting around 1 h promises to be more accepted, efficient, effective and safe than the combined organ-specific screening techniques currently in use.

In addition, PET/CT is a promising candidate for semi-automated analysis as it acquires digital data, in vivo, at the molecular level. In the context of colorectal cancer, this cannot be said of the subjective optical interpretation at the macroscopic level required for colonoscopy. Although laxative-free CT colonography [49] and PET/CT are both non-invasive and require no bowel preparation, PET/CT seems superior for multi-organ screening and semi- or potentially full automation of the analysis, as we have discussed.

Conclusion

In contrast to most other screening techniques, semi-automation in colorectal screening seems possible with PET/CT. This opens the door for further study into the feasibility of automated screening. Independent of extrinsic factors, an SUVmax ≥5.0 in a focal colorectal uptake in 18FDG-PET/CT should automatically trigger endoscopic evaluation, if not contraindicated. This would improve the experience many individuals have during the screening process itself, as well as saving the time and cost of detailed interpretation of colorectal screening across the board. Only cases with SUVmax <5.0 should be referred for individual assessment.

Abbreviations

18FDG: 

2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose

PET/CT: 

positron emission tomography/computed tomography

SUVmax

maximum standardised uptake value

MIP: 

maximum intensity projection

voxel: 

volume pixel

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the work presented in this paper (study conception and design: WL, HL; acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data: WL, BW, SF, BB, FG, TV; drafting of manuscript and critical revision: all authors). All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiology, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe University Hospital
(2)
Multiorgan Screening Foundation (www.multiorganscreening.org)
(3)
Institute of Medical Informatics and Biometry, University Hospital
(4)
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe University Hospital

References

  1. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2155–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, Liu D, Gareen IF, Hanna L, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. Cancer. 2009;115(2):410–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Yasuda S, Shohtsu A. Cancer screening with whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography. Lancet. 1997;350(9094):1819.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, Ahlquist DA, Nelson H, Ehman RL, et al. Detection of colorectal polyps by computed tomographic colography: feasibility of a novel technique. Gastroenterology. 1996;110(1):284–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Steiner P, Fried M, Krestin GP, Debatin JF. Preliminary assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging for various colonic disorders. Lancet. 1997;349(9061):1288–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Luboldt HJ, Fornara P, Weissbach L, Wirth M, Lorenz W, Rubben H. Systematic development of a guideline for early detection of prostate cancer: the German way in the evidence gap. Eur Urol. 2004;46(6):725–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Huntington SF, Nasta SD, Schuster SJ, Doshi JA, Svoboda J. Utility of interim and end-of-treatment [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in frontline therapy of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(9):2579–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Miltenyi Z, Barna S, Garai I, Simon Z, Jona A, Magyari F, et al. Prognostic value of interim and restaging PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma. Results of the CHEAP (chemotherapy effectiveness assessment by PET/CT) study—long term observation. Neoplasma. 2015;62(4):627–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. van den Hoff J, Oehme L, Schramm G, Maus J, Lougovski A, Petr J, et al. The PET-derived tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) is superior to tumor SUV as a surrogate parameter of the metabolic rate of FDG. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):77.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Krause BJ, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Delbeke D, Kotzerke J, Minkov V, et al. FDG-PET/CT in oncology. German guideline. Nuklearmedizin Nucl Med. 2007;46(6):291–301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Luboldt W, Volker T, Wiedemann B, Zophel K, Wehrmann U, Koch A, et al. Detection of relevant colonic neoplasms with PET/CT: promising accuracy with minimal CT dose and a standardised PET cut-off. Eur Rad. 2010;20(9):2274–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidenreich WF, Paretzke HG, Jacob P. No evidence for increased tumor rates below 200 mSv in the atomic bomb survivors data. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1997;36(3):205–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H, Theilmeier A, Von Stillfried D, Schmiegel W. Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(7):1460–7.e2.Google Scholar
  14. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103 Ann ICRP 37 (2–4). 2007. ISBN 978-0-7020-3048-2.Google Scholar
  15. Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL, Vaeth M, Mabuchi K. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, Part I. Cancer: 1950–1990. Radiat Res. 1996;146(1):1–27.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Hopkins RH Jr, Humphrey LL, Levine J, Sweet DE, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):378–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Sarikaya I, Bloomston M, Povoski SP, Zhang J, Hall NC, Knopp MV, et al. FDG-PET scan in patients with clinically and/or radiologically suspicious colorectal cancer recurrence but normal CEA. World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:64.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Peng J, He Y, Xu J, Sheng J, Cai S, Zhang Z. Detection of incidental colorectal tumours with 18F-labelled 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(11):e374–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamel EM, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, Schiesser M, Fried M, Padberg B, et al. Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2004;45(11):1804–10.Google Scholar
  20. van Kouwen MC, Nagengast FM, Jansen JB, Oyen WJ, Drenth JP. 2-(18F)-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography detects clinical relevant adenomas of the colon: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3713–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutman F, Alberini JL, Wartski M, Vilain D, Le Stanc E, Sarandi F, et al. Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(2):495–500.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Gollub MJ, Akhurst T, Markowitz AJ, Weiser MR, Guillem JG, Smith LM, et al. Combined CT colonography and 18F-FDG PET of colon polyps: potential technique for selective detection of cancer and precancerous lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(1):130–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Nagata K, Ota Y, Okawa T, Endo S, Kudo SE. PET/CT colonography for the preoperative evaluation of the colon proximal to the obstructive colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(6):882–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Ravizza D, Bartolomei M, Santoro L, Tamayo D, Fiori G, Trovato C, et al. Positron emission tomography for the detection of colorectal adenomas. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42(3):185–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Weston BR, Iyer RB, Qiao W, Lee JH, Bresalier RS, Ross WA. Ability of integrated positron emission and computed tomography to detect significant colonic pathology: the experience of a tertiary cancer center. Cancer. 2010;116(6):1454–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Mori S, Oguchi K. Application of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detection of proximal lesions of obstructive colorectal cancer. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(8):584–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kei PL, Vikram R, Yeung HW, Stroehlein JR, Macapinlac HA. Incidental finding of focal FDG uptake in the bowel during PET/CT: CT features and correlation with histopathologic results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(5):W401–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Purandare NC, Gawade SK, Puranik AD, Agrawal A, Shah S, Rangarajan V. Etiology and significance of incidentally detected focal colonic uptake on FDG PET/CT. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2012;22(4):260–6.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Putora PM, Muller J, Borovicka J, Plasswilm L, Schmidt F. Relevance of incidental colorectal FDG-PET/CT-enhanced lesions. Onkologie. 2013;36(4):200–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Cho SH, Kim SW, Kim WC, Park JM, Yoo Ie R, Kim SH, et al. Incidental focal colorectal (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(22):3453–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. van Hoeij FB, Keijsers RG, Loffeld BC, Dun G, Stadhouders PH, Weusten BL. Incidental colonic focal FDG uptake on PET/CT: can the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) guide us in the timing of colonoscopy? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(1):66–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, Visokai V, Trubac M, Schneiderova M. Routine (18)F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1784–8.Google Scholar
  33. le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ, Bakker CM, Keulen ET, de Ridder RJ, et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut. 2014;63(6):957–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Keyzer C, Dhaene B, Blocklet D, De Maertelaer V, Goldman S, Gevenois PA. Colonoscopic findings in patients with incidental colonic focal FDG uptake. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(5):W586–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Oh JR, Min JJ, Song HC, Chong A, Kim GE, Choi C, et al. A stepwise approach using metabolic volume and SUVmax to differentiate malignancy and dysplasia from benign colonic uptakes on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37(6):e134–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Treglia G, Taralli S, Salsano M, Muoio B, Sadeghi R, Giovanella L. Prevalence and malignancy risk of focal colorectal incidental uptake detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT: a meta-analysis. Radiol Oncol. 2014;48(2):99–104.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoder H, Erdi YE, Chao K, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW. Clinical implications of different image reconstruction parameters for interpretation of whole-body PET studies in cancer patients. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2004;45(4):559–66.Google Scholar
  39. Hill MJ, Morson BC, Bussey HJ. Aetiology of adenoma–carcinoma sequence in large bowel. Lancet. 1978;1(8058):245–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, Kern SE, Preisinger AC, Leppert M, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(9):525–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Toribara NW, Sleisenger MH. Screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(13):861–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(2):594–642.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Gollub MJ, Grewal RK, Panu N, Thipphavong S, Sohn M, Zheng J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT for detection of advanced colorectal adenoma. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(6):611–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Natural history of colorectal adenomas: birth cohort analysis among 3.6 million participants of screening colonoscopy. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers and prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive. Oncology. 2013;22(6):1043–51.Google Scholar
  45. Choi YJ, Kim MJ, Lee BH, Kwon MJ, Hwang HS. Relationship between preoperative (1)(8)f-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and epidermal growth factor receptor status in primary colorectal cancer. Yonsei Med J. 2016;57(1):232–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. van Kouwen MC, Drenth JP, van Krieken JH, van Goor H, Friederich P, Oyen WJ, et al. Ability of FDG-PET to detect all cancers in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, and impact on clinical management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(3):270–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Na SY, Kim KJ, Han S, Jin S, Kim JS, Yang DH, et al. Who should undergo a colonoscopy among patients with incidental colon uptake on PET-CT? Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(8):1045–53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Prorok PC, Andriole GL, Bresalier RS, Buys SS, Chia D, Crawford ED, et al. Design of the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(6 Suppl):273s–309s.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Kazam IG, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(10):692–702.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Luboldt et al. 2016

Advertisement