Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Oct;83(10):1734-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.026. Epub 2014 Jul 1.

Staging accuracy of pancreatic cancer: comparison between non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT

Tomohiro Yoneyama  1 , Ukihide Tateishi  2 , Itaru Endo  3 , Tomio Inoue  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Staging accuracy of pancreatic cancer: comparison between non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT

Tomohiro Yoneyama et al. Eur J Radiol. 2014 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: Our aim was to clarify the diagnostic impact of contrast-enhanced (CE) (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for staging of pancreatic cancer compared to non-CE PET/CT.

Method and materials: Between April 2006 and November 2009, a total of 95 patients (age range, 36-83 years [mean age, 67]) with primary pancreatic cancer underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT examinations. Diagnostic accuracy was compared between non-CE PET/CT and CE PET/CT. Images were analyzed visually and quantitatively by two blinded reviewers. Reference standard was histological examination in 48 patients (51%) and/or confirmation of an obvious progression in number and/or size of the lesions on follow-up CT examinations in 47 patients (49%).

Results: For T-staging, invasion of duodenum (n=20, 21%), mesentery (n=12, 13%), and retroperitoneum (n=13, 14%) was correctly diagnosed by both modalities. The ROC analyses revealed that the Az values of celiac artery (CA), common hepatic artery (CHA), splenic artery (SV), and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) invasion were significantly higher in the CE PET/CT group for both readers. Nodal metastasis was correctly diagnosed by CE PET/CT in 38 patients (88%) and by non-CE PET/CT in 45 patients (87%). Diagnostic accuracies of nodal metastasis in two modalities were similar. Using CE PET/CT, distant metastasis, scalene node metastasis, and peritoneal dissemination were correctly assigned in 39 patients (91%), while interpretation based on non-CE PET/CT revealed distant metastasis, scalene node metastasis, and peritoneal dissemination in 42 patients (81%). Diagnostic accuracy of distant metastasis, scalene node metastasis, and peritoneal dissemination with CE PET/CT was significantly higher than that of non-CE PET/CT (p<0.05).

Conclusion: CE PET/CT allows a more precise assessment of distant metastasis, scalene node metastasis, and peritoneal dissemination in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Keywords: Contrast-enhanced; PET/CT; Pancreatic cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types