Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Colorectal cancer staging: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Correct staging is imperative for colorectal cancer (CRC) since it influences both prognosis and management. Several imaging methods are used for this purpose, with variable performance. Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance (PET/MR) is an innovative imaging technique recently employed for clinical application. The present study was undertaken to compare the staging accuracy of whole-body positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) with whole-body PET/MR in patients with both newly diagnosed and treated colorectal cancer.

Methods

Twenty-six patients, who underwent same day whole-body (WB) PET/CT and WB-PET/MR, were evaluated. PET/CT and PET/MR studies were interpreted by consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician. Correlations with prior imaging and follow-up studies were used as the reference standard. Correct staging was compared between methods using McNemar’s Chi square test.

Results

The two methods were in agreement and correct for 18/26 (69%) patients, and in agreement and incorrect for one patient (3.8%). PET/MR and PET/CT stages for the remaining 7/26 patients (27%) were discordant, with PET/MR staging being correct in all seven cases. PET/MR significantly outperformed PET/CT overall for accurate staging (P = 0.02).

Conclusion

PET/MR outperformed PET/CT in CRC staging. PET/MR might allow accurate local and distant staging of CRC patients during both at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howlander N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (2014) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2011. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Cancer Working Group (2015) United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2012 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute, Atlanta

  3. Cancer Research UK (2016). http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/incidence#heading-Seven. Accessed July 2016

  4. Abdalla E, Vauthey J-N, Ellis L, et al. (2004) Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 239:818

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanas G, Taylor A, Primrose J, et al. (2012) Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin Epidemiol 4:283–301

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Haug U, Engel S, Verheyen F, Linder R (2014) Estimating colorectal cancer treatment costs: a pragmatic approach exemplified by health insurance data from Germany. Plos ONE 9:e88407

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26:303–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Niekel M, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257:674–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl R (2003) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797–1803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Veil-Haibach P, Kuehle CA, Beyer T, et al. (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of colorectal cancer staging with whole-body PET/CT colonography. JAMA 296:2590–2600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Low R, McCue M, Barone R, Saleh F, Song T (2003) MR staging of primary colorectal carcinoma: comparison with surgical and histopathologic findings. Abdom Imaging 28:784–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bipat S, Glas A, Slors F, et al. (2004) Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR Imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology 232:773–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fletcher J, Djulbegovic B, Soares H, et al. (2008) Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49:480–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brush B, Chappell F, et al. (2011) The value of FDG positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (PET/CT) in pre-operative staging of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. doi:10.3310/hta15350

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwok H, Bisset IP, Hill GL (2000) Preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 15:9–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, Warren R, Thoeni R (2002) Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. Radiology 224:748–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Radiology (2016) ACR appropriateness criteria. Pretreatment staging colorectal cancer. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69339/Narrative/. Accessed July 2016

  18. Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, et al. (2004) Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 232:815–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK (2002) PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 225:575–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nie Y, Li Q, Li F, et al. (2006) Integrating PET and CT information to improve diagnostic accuracy for lung nodules: a semiautomatic computer-aided method. J Nucl Med 47:1075–1080

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Nabhani K, Syed R, Michopoulou S, et al. (2013) Qualitative and quantitative comparison of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging in clinical practice. J Nucl Med 55:88–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kang B, Lee J, Song Y, et al. (2016) Added value of integrated whole-body PET/MRI for evaluation of colorectal cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced MDCT. Am J Roentgenol 206:W10–W20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, et al. (2013) Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients—a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology 269:857–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paspulati R, Partovi S, Herrmann K, et al. (2015) Comparison of hybrid FDG PET/MRI compared with PET/CT in colorectal cancer staging and restaging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging 40:1415–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brendle C, Schwenzer N, Rempp H, et al. (2016) Assessment of metastatic colorectal cancer with hybrid imaging: comparison of reading performance using different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT in a short case series. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 43:123–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee S, Seo H, Kang K, et al. (2015) Clinical performance of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/dixon-VIBE, T1-weighted, and T2-weighted MRI protocol in colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 40:e392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2010) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Hoboken: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rappeport E, Loft A, Berthelsen A, et al. (2007) Contrast-enhanced FDG-PET/CT vs. SPIO-enhanced MRI vs. FDG-PET vs. CT in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a prospective study with intraoperative confirmation. Acta Radiol 48:369–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kong G, Jackson C, Koh D, et al. (2008) The use of 18F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal liver metastases—comparison with CT and liver MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 35:1323–1329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Michielsen K, Vergote I, Beeck K, et al. (2014) Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur Radiol 24:889–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Antoch G, Vogt F, Freudenberg L, et al. (2003) Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 290:3199–3206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schulthess G, Schlemmer H-P (2009) A look ahead: PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 36:3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, et al. (2010) Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med 51:1198–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B, et al. (2011) Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med 52:1914–1922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, et al. (2013) Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology 268:874–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen Y, Huang G, Sun X, et al. (2008) Optimizing delayed scan time for FDG PET: comparison of the early and late delayed scan. Nucl Med Commun 29:425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Laffon E, de Clermont H, Begueret H, et al. (2009) Assessment of dual-time-point 18F-FDG-PET imaging for pulmonary lesions. Nucl Med Commun 30:455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheng G, Torigian D, Zhuang H, Alavi A (2013) When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 40:779–787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University Medical School, 149 Thirteenth Street, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA

    Onofrio A. Catalano, Thomas Witzel, Ciprian Catana, Umar Mahmood & Bruce R. Rosen

  2. Department of Radiology, Abdominal Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, WHT 270, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Onofrio A. Catalano, Dushyant V. Sahani, Michael S. Gee, Peter F. Hahn & Debra Gervais

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of São Paulo Medical School (FMUSP) and Hospital Sirio-Libanes, Sao Paulo, 01308-050, Brazil

    Artur M. Coutinho

  4. Department of Radiology, MGH Biostatistics Center and MGH Martinos Center, Harvard University Medical School, 149 Thirteenth Street, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA

    Mark G. Vangel

  5. Department of Radiology, Pediatric Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Michael S. Gee

  6. Department of Radiology, University of Naples Parthenope, Via F. Acton 38, 80143, Naples, Italy

    Andrea Soricelli

  7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, SDN IRCCS, Via Gianturco 113, 80143, Naples, Italy

    Marco Salvatore

  8. Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Umar Mahmood

Authors
  1. Onofrio A. Catalano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Artur M. Coutinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dushyant V. Sahani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark G. Vangel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael S. Gee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter F. Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Witzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrea Soricelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marco Salvatore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ciprian Catana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Umar Mahmood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Bruce R. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Debra Gervais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Onofrio A. Catalano.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained by any patient undergoing PET/MR. Informed consent included the possibility of using PET/MR data and other imaging, clinical, and laboratory data for possible subsequent oncology research studies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Catalano, O.A., Coutinho, A.M., Sahani, D.V. et al. Colorectal cancer staging: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR. Abdom Radiol 42, 1141–1151 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0985-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0985-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation