Ability of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of gallbladder cancer

Purpose To assess the value of FDG‐PET/CT in the evaluation of gallbladder carcinomas (GBC). Methods A prospective cohort of patients with suspicion of or confirmed GBC was studied with FDG‐PET/CT. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were calculated in comparison with pathology and/or the clinical course...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of surgical oncology Vol. 109; no. 3; pp. 218 - 224
Main Authors Ramos-Font, Carlos, Gómez-Rio, Manuel, Rodríguez-Fernández, Antonio, Jiménez-Heffernan, Amelia, Sánchez, Rocío Sánchez, Llamas-Elvira, Jose Manuel
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2014
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Purpose To assess the value of FDG‐PET/CT in the evaluation of gallbladder carcinomas (GBC). Methods A prospective cohort of patients with suspicion of or confirmed GBC was studied with FDG‐PET/CT. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were calculated in comparison with pathology and/or the clinical course of patients. Clinical impact of PET/CT imaging was estimated. Results Forty‐nine patients were enrolled (34 malignant tumors, 15 benign lesions; 37 staging, 12 restaging). Overall diagnostic accuracy was 95.9% for the diagnosis of the primary lesion, 85.7% for lymph node involvement and 95.9% for metastatic disease. Mean SUVmax in malignant gallbladder lesions was 7.92 ± 6.25 Analysis of ROC curves showed a SUVmax cut‐off value of 3.62 for malignancy (S: 78.1%; Sp: 88.2%). Diagnostic accuracy in the restaging group reached 100%. FDG‐PET/CT changed the management of 22.4% of the population. Comments Diagnosis of malignancy or benignity of suspicious gallbladder lesions is accurately made with FDG PET/CT, allowing a precise staging of GBC due to its ability to identify unsuspected metastatic disease. SUVmax has a complementary role in addition to visual analysis. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:218–224. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Bibliography:istex:6AF57C98E9FDBDA84DEE5B5DD17543968A429020
ArticleID:JSO23476
ark:/67375/WNG-7NTV6C1B-F
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-4790
1096-9098
DOI:10.1002/jso.23476