Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Positron Emission Tomography pp 77–103Cite as

FDG PET and PET/CT for Colorectal Cancer

  • Protocol
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 727))

Abstract

The evaluation of patients with known or suspected recurrent colorectal carcinoma is now an accepted indication for positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) imaging. PET and CT are complimentary, and therefore, integrated PET/CT imaging should be performed where available. FDG-PET/CT is indicated as the initial test for diagnosis and staging of recurrence, and for preoperative staging (N and M) of known recurrence that is considered to be resectable. FDG-PET imaging is valuable for the differentiation of posttreatment changes from recurrent tumor, differentiation of benign from malignant lesions (indeterminate lymph nodes, hepatic, and pulmonary lesions), and the evaluation of patients with rising tumor markers in the absence of a known source. The addition of FDG-PET/CT to the evaluation of these patients reduces overall treatment costs by accurately identifying patients who will and will not benefit from surgical procedures. This new powerful technology provides more accurate interpretation of both CT and FDG-PET images and therefore more optimal patient care. PET/CT fusion images affect the clinical management by guiding further procedures (biopsy, surgery, and radiation therapy), excluding the need for additional procedures, and changing both inter- and intramodality therapy.

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

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. Cancer facts and figures, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society Guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:41–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McFarland EG, Levin B, Lieberman DA, Pickhardt PJ, Johnson CD, Glick SN, Brooks D, Smith RA. Revised colorectal screening guidelines: joint effort of the American Cancer Society, U.S. Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and American College of Radiology. Radiology. 2008 Sep;248(3):717–720.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yasuda S, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Nishumi N, Takahashi W, Ide M, Shohtsu A. 18F-FDG PET detection of colonic adenomas. J Nucl Med 2001;42:989–992.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Agress H and Cooper BZ. Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2004;230 (2): 417–422.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kamel EM, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, et al. Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: Correlation with endoscopic and histopathological results. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1804–1810.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gutman F, Alberini JL, Wartski M et al. Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 2005;185 (2):495–500.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Israel O, Yefremov N, Bar-Shalom R, Kagana O, Frenkel A, Keidar Z, Fischer D. PET/CT detection of unexpected gastrointestinal foci of 18F-FDG uptake: incidence, localization patterns, and clinical significance. J Nucl Med. 2005 May;46(5):758–762.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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): 3713–3717.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Friedland S, Soetikno R, Carlisle M, Taur A, Kaltenbach T, Segall G. 18-Fluorodeoxygl-ucose positron emission tomography has limited sensitivity for colonic adenomas and early stage colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61 (3):305–400.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tatlidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR, Conti PS. Incidental colonic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: correlation with colonoscopic and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2002;224(3):783–787.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Llamas-Elvira JM, Rodríguez-Fernández A, Gutiérrez-Sáinz J, Gomez-Rio M, Bellon-Guardia M, Ramos-Font C, Rebollo-Aguirre AC, Cabello-García D, Ferrón-Orihuela A.Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Jun;34(6):859–867.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdel-Nabi H, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM, Cronin VR, Galantowicz PJ, Carbone GM, Spaulding MB. Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: Correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology 1998;206:755–760.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mukai M, Sadahiro S, Yasuda S, Ishida H, Tokunaga N, Tajima T, Makuuchi H. Preoperative evaluation by whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with primary colorectal cancer. Oncol Reports 2000;7:85–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, et al. Routine 18F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: Comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1784–1788.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dinter DJ, Hofheinz RD, Hartel M, Kaehler GF, Neff W, Diehl SJ. Preoperative staging of rectal tumors: comparison of endorectal ultrasound, hydro-CT, and high-resolution endorectal MRI. Onkologie. 2008 May;31(5):230–235.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Desch CE, Benson AB 3rd, Somerfield MR, Flynn PJ, Krause C, Loprinzi CL, Minsky BD, Pfister DG, Virgo KS, Petrelli NJ; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8512–8519.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yun HR, Lee LJ, Park JH, Cho YK, Cho YB, Lee WY, Kim HC, Chun HK, Yun SH. Local recurrence after curative resection in patients with colon and rectal cancers. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008 Aug 8. [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  19. Helling TS, Blondeau B. Anatomic segmental resection compared to major hepatectomy in the treatment of liver neoplasms. HPB (Oxford). 2005;7(3):222–225. Links

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hughes KS, Simon R, Songhorabodi S, et al. Resection of liver for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study of indications for resection. Surgery. 1988;103:278–288.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, McDonald JS, Haller DJ, Laurie JA, Tangen CA. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA. 1993;270:943–947.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yonekura Y, Benua RS, Brill AB, et al. Increased accumulation of 2-deoxy-2[18F]fluoro-d- glucose in liver metastases from colon carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1982;23:1133–1137.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P, et al. Recurrence of colorectal tumors: PET evaluation. Radiology 1989;170:329–332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ito K, Kato T, Tadokoro M, et al. Recurrent rectal cancer and scar: differentiation with PET and MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182:549–552.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim EE, Chung SK, Haynie TP, et al. Differentiation of residual or recurrent tumors from post-treatment changes with F-18 FDG-PET. Radiographics. 1992;12:269–279.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gupta NC, Falk PM, Frank AL, Thorson AM, Firck MP, Bowman B. Pre-operative staging of colorectal carcinoma using positron emission tomography. Nebr Med J 1993;78:30–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Falk PM, Gupta NC, Thorson AG, et al. Positron emission tomography for preoperative staging of colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:153–156.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Beets G, Penninckx F, Schiepers C, et al. Clinical value of whole-body positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1666–1670.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:517–522.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Vitola JV, Delbeke D, Sandler MP, et al. Positron emission tomography to stage metastatic colorectal carcinoma to the liver. Am J Surg 1996;171:21–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lai DT, Fulham M, Stephen MS, et al. The role of whole-body positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in identifying operable colorectal cancer. Arch Surg. 1996;131:703–707.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Delbeke D, Vitola J, Sandler MP, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1196–1201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, et al. Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:613–620.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Ogunbiyi OA, Siegel BA. Utility of FDG PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998;227(3):319–323.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Valk PE, Abella-Columna E, Haseman MK, et al. Whole-body PET imaging with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg 1999;134:503–511.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ruhlmann J, Schomburg A, Bender H, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer patients studied in routine daily practice. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:1195–1204.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E, Dupont P, Bormans G, De Vadder N, Penninckx F, Van Hoe L, Mortelmans L. Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography withfluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Mar;17(3):894–901.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Akhurst T, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography imaging of colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol. 1999;26(5):577–583.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Vogel SB, Drane WE, Ros PR, Kerns SR, Bland KI. Prediction of surgical resectability in patients with hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 1994;219:508–516.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Imbriaco M, Akhurst T, Hilton S, Yeung HW, Macapinlac HA, Mazumdar M, Pace L, Kemeny N, Erdi Y, Cohen A, Fong Y, Guillem J, Larson SM. Whole-Body FDG-PET in patients with Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma. A comparative Study with CT. Clin Pos Imag 2000;3(3):107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Imdahl A, Reinhardt MJ, Nitzsche EU, Mix M, Dingeldey A, Einert A, Baier P, Farthmann EH. Impact of 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography for decision making in colorectal cancer recurrences. Arch Surg. 2000;385(2):129–134.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Staib L, Schirrmeister H, Reske SN, Beger HG. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg. 2000;180(1):1–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kalff VV, Hicks R, Ware R. F-18 FDG PET for suspected or confirmed recurrence of colon cancer. A prospective study of impact and outcome. Clin Pos Imag 2000;3:183.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, Schwimmer J, Czernin J, Phelphs M, Gambhir SS. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41: 1177–1189.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schimmer J, Silverman DHS, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated review of the literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42 (suppl):9S–12S.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF, Ogunbiyi OA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Birnbaum EH, Fleshman JW, Kodner IJ, Read TE. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(6):759–67; discussion 767–770.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Berger KL, Nicholson SA, Dehadashti F, Siegel BA. FDG PET evaluation of mucinous neoplasms: correlation of FDG uptake with histopathologic features. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(4):1005–1008.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, Warren RS, Thoeni RF. Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. Radiology 2002;224(3):748–756.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bipat S, van Leeuwen MS, Comans EF, Pijl ME, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH, Stoker J. Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis--meta-analysis. Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):123–131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wiering B, Ruers TJ, Krabbe PF, Dekker HM, Oyen WJ. Comparison of multiphase CT, FDG-PET and intra-operative ultrasound in patients with colorectal liver metastases selected for surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Feb;14(2):818–826.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Fischman AJ, Kadavigere R, Blake M, Hahn PF, Saini S. Detection of liver metastases from adenocarcinoma of the colon and pancreas: comparison of mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced liver MRI and whole-body FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jul;185(1):239–246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Venook A: Critical evaluation of current treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2005;10:250–261.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Findlay M, Young H, Cunningham D, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of tumor metabolism using fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer liver metastases: correlation with tumor response to fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:700–708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Akhurst T, Kates TJ, Mazumdar M, Yeung H, Riedel ER, Burt BM, Blumgart L, Jarnagin W, Larson SM, Fong Y. Recent chemotherapy reduces the sensitivity of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8713–8716.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Takahashi S, Kuroki Y, Nasu K, Nawano S, Konishi M, Nakagohri T, Gotohda N, Saito N, Kinoshita T. Positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose in evaluating colorectal hepatic metastasis down-staged by chemotherapy. Anticancer Res. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):4705–4711.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Carnaghi C, Tronconi MC, Rimassa L, Tondulli L, Zuradelli M, Rodari M, Doci R, Luttmann F, Torzilli G, Rubello D, Al-Nahhas A, Santoro A, Chiti A.Utility of 18F-FDG PET and contrast-enhanced CT scan in the assessment of residual liver metastasis from colorectal cancer following adjuvant chemotherapy. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2007;10(1):12–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lubezky N, Metser U, Geva R, Nakache R, Shmueli E, Klausner JM, Even-Sapir E, Figer A, Ben-Haim M. The role and limitations of 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan and computerized tomography (CT) in restaging patients with hepatic colorectal metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison with operative and pathological findings. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 Apr;11(4):472–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tan MC, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG, Siegel BA, Strasberg SM. Chemotherapy-induced normalization of FDG uptake by colorectal liver metastases does not usually indicate complete pathologic response. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11(9):1112–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kahn H, Alexander A, Ratinic J et al. Preoperative staging of irradiated rectal cancers using digital rectal examination, computed tomography, endorectal ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging does not accurately predict T0, N0 pathology. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:140–144.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P, et al. Recurrence of colorectal tumors: PET evaluation. Radiology 1989;170:329–332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Haberkorn U, Strauss LG, Dimitrakopoulou A, Engenhart R, Oberdorfer F, Ostertag H, Romahn J, van Kaick G. PET studies of fluorodeoxyglucose metabolism in patients with recurrent colorectal tumors receiving radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 1991;31:1485–1490.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Moore HG, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Minsky BD, Mazumdar M, Guillem JG. A case controlled study of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of pelvic recurrence in previously irradiated rectal cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197(1):22–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Guillem J, Calle J, Akhurst T, et al. Prospective assessment of primary rectal cancer response to preoperative radiation and chemotherapy using 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:18–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Guillem JG, Moore HG, Akhurst T et al. Sequential preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose-P positron emission tomography assessment of response to preoperative chemoradiation: A means for determining longterm outcomes of rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199:1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Liu LX, Zhang WH, Jiang HC. Current treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2003;9(2):193–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ruers T, Bleichrodt RP. Treatment of liver metastases, an update on the possibilities and results. Eur J Cancer 2002;38(7):1023–1033.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Gray B, Van Hazel G, Hope M, Burton M, Moroz P, Anderson J, Gebsk V. Randomized trial of Sir-spheres plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for treating patients with liver metastases from primary large bowel cancer. Ann Oncol 2001;12 (12):1711–1720.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Nijsen JF, van het Schip AD, Hennink WE, Rook DW, van Rijk PP, de Klerk JM. Advances in nuclear oncology: microspheres for internal radionuclide therapy of liver tumours. Curr Med Chem 2002;9(1):73–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Vitola JV, Delbeke D, Meranze SG, Mazer MJ, Pinson CW. Positron emission tomography with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose to evaluate the results of hepatic chemoembolization. Cancer.1996;78:2216–2222.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, Magata Y, Yonekura Y, Tanaka A, Yamaoka Y, Yamamoto K, Konoishi J. Value of fluorine-18-FDG PET to monitor hepatocellular carcinoma after interventional therapy. J Nucl Med. 1994;35(12):1965–1969.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Solbiati L, Livraghi T, Golberg SN et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: long-term results in 117 patients. Radiology 2001;221:159–166.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Linamond P, Zimmerman P, Raman SS et al. Interpretation of CT and MRI after radiofrequency ablation of hepatic malignancies. Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1635–1640.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Langenhoff BS, Oyen WJ, Jager GJ, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, Corstens FH, Ruers TJ. Efficacy of fluorine-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in detecting tumor recurrence after local ablative therapy for liver metastases: A prospective study.J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4453–4458.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Anderson GS, Brinkmann F, Soulen MC, Alavi A, Zhuang H. FDG positron emission tomography in the surveillance of hepatic tumors treated with radiofrequency ablation. Clin Nucl Med 2003;28:192–197.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ludwig V, Hopper OW, Martin WH, Kikkawa R, Delbeke D. FDG-PET surveillance of hepatic metastases from prostate cancer following radiofrequency ablation-Case report.. Americ Surg 2003; 69:593–598.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Donckier V, Van Laetham JL, Goldman S et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a tool for early recognition of incomplete tumor destruction after radiofrequency ablation for liver metastases. J Surg Oncol 2003;84:215–223.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Veit P, Antoch G, Stergar H et al. Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: Initial results. Eur Radiol 2006;16:80–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Barker DW, Zagoria RJ, Morton KA et al. Evaluation of liver metastases after radiofrequency ablation: Utility of FDG PET and PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1096–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Veit P et al. Qassessment of liver tissue after radiofrequency ablation: Findings with different imaging procedures. J Nucl Med 2005;46:520–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wong CY, Salem R, Raman S, Gates VL, Dworkin HJ. Evaluating 90Y-glass microsphere treatment response of unresectable colorectal liver metastases by [18F]FDG PET: a comparison with CT or MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2002;29:815–820.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Wong CY, Salem R, Qing F et al. Metabolic response after intra-arterial 90Y-glass microsphere treatment for colorectal metastases: Comparison of quantitative and visual analyses by 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1892–1897.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Pfister DG, Benson AB 3rd, Somerfield MR. Clinical practice. Surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 3;350(23):2375–2382.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Sobhani I, Tiret E, Lebtahi R, Aparicio T, Itti E, Montravers F, Vaylet C, Rougier P, André T, Gornet JM, Cherqui D, Delbaldo C, Panis Y, Talbot JN, Meignan M, Le Guludec D. Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008 Mar 11;98(5):875–880.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Strasberg SM, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Drebin JA, Linehan D. Survival of patients evaluated by FDG PET before hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A prospective database study. Ann Surg 2001;233:320–321.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ruers TJ, Langenhoff BS, Neeleman N, Jger GJ, Strijk S, Wobbes T, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: A prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20 (2):388–395.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Meta J, Seltzer M, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Ariannejad M, Gambhir SS, Phelps ME, Valk P, Czernin J. Impact of 18F-FDG PET on managing patients with colorectal cancer: The referring physician’s perspective. J Nucl Med 2001;42:586–590.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Jager GJ, Oyen WJ, Ruers TJ. The impact of fluor-18-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases. Cancer. 2005 Dec 15;104(12):2658–2670.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Kelley B, Stuckey JG, Byrne AJ, Ramshaw JE, Fulham MJ.PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study. J Nucl Med. 2008 Aug 14. [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  89. Fernandez FG, Drebin JA, Linehan DC, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Strasberg SM. Five-year survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients screened by positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET). Ann Surg 2004;240(3):438–447; discussion 447–450.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1797–1803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer: Additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200–1209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Roman CD, Martin WH, Delbeke D. Incremental value of fusion imaging with integrated PET-CT in oncology. Clin Nucl Med 2005;30(5):470–477.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P et al. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027–1034.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Soyka JD, Veit-Haibach P, Strobel K, Breitenstein S, Tschopp A, Mende KA, Lago MP, Hany TF. Staging pathways in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: is contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT the diagnostic tool of choice? J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):354–361.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Tateishi U, Maeda T, Morimoto T, Miyake M, Arai Y, Kim EE. Non-enhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for nodal staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Oct;34(10):1627–1634.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Osman MM, Cohade C, Fishman E, Wahl RL. Clinically significant incidental findings on non-contrast CT portion of PET-CT studies: Frequency in 250 patients. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1252–1355.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Dizendorf E, Ciernik IF, Baumert B, et al. Impact of integrated PETCT scanning on external beam radiation treatment planning. J Nucl Med 2002;43:33P.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, Reiner B, Burger C, Davis JB, Lutolf UM, Steinert HC, Von Schulthess GK. Radiation treatment planning with integrated positron emission and computed tomography (PET/CT): A feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(3):853–863.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Crippa F et al. Tumori 1997;83 (4):748–752.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Tamahashi N, Ido T. Intratumoral distribution of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and granulocytes studied by microautoradiography. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1972–1980.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Gambhir SS, Valk P, Shepherd J, Hoh C, Allen M, Phelps ME. Cost effective analysis modeling of the role of FDG-PET in the management of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:90P.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Park KC, Schwimmer J, Sheperd JE, Phelps ME, Czernin JR, Schiepers C, Gambhir SS. Decision analysis for the cost-effective management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 2001;233:310–319.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Podoloff DA, Advani RH, Allred C, Benson AB, Brown E, Burstein HJ, Carlson RW, Coleman RE, Czuczman MS, Delbeke D, Edge SB, Ettinger DS, Grannis FW, Hillner BE, Hoffman JM, Keil K, Komaki R, Larson SM, Mankoff DA, Rozenzweig KE, Skibber JM, Yahalom J, Yu JM, Zelenetz AD. NCCN Task Force Report: Positron Emission Tomography (PET/Computed tomography (CT) scanning in cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2007;May;5 Suppl 1: S1–S22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. James W Fletcher, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Heloisa P. Soares, Barry A. Siegel, Val J. Lowe, Gary H. Lyman, Edward Coleman, Richard Wahl, John Christopher Paschold, Norbert Avril, Lawrence H. Einhorn W. Warren Suh, David Samson, Dominique Delbeke, Mark Gorman, Anthony F. Shields.Recommendations for the Use of FDG (fluorine-18, (2-[18F]Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose) Positron Emission Tomography in Oncology. J Nucl Med 2008;49:480–508.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Blau M, Nagler W, Bender MA. A new ­isotope for bone scanning. J Nucl Med 1962;3:332–334.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Bang S, Baug CA. Topographical distribution of fluoride in iliac bone of a fluoride-treated osteoporotic patient. J Bone Miner Res 1990;5:S87–S89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Shields AF, Grierson JR, Dohmen BM, et al. Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med 1998;4:1334–1336.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Francis DL, Visvikis D, Costa DC, et al. Potential impact of [(18)F]3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine versus [(18)F]fluoro-2-­deoxy-d-glucose in positron emission tomography for colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Jul;30(7):988–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Dominique Delbeke

  2. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    William H. Martin

Authors
  1. Dominique Delbeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William H. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominique Delbeke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Radiology, University of Iowa, Hawkins Drive 200, Iowa City, 52242-1009, Iowa, USA

    Malik E. Juweid

  2. , Dept. Nuclear Medicine & PET Research, VU University Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Otto S. Hoekstra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Humana Press

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Delbeke, D., Martin, W.H. (2011). FDG PET and PET/CT for Colorectal Cancer. In: Juweid, M., Hoekstra, O. (eds) Positron Emission Tomography. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 727. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-061-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-062-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation