The impact of fluor‐18‐deoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases

Fluor‐18‐deoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) has emerged as a promising diagnostic modality in recurrent colorectal carcinoma. Whole‐body FDG‐PET may be an accurate diagnostic modality to determine whether patients with recurrent hepatic disease are suitable candidates for curative resection. Reports on the use of FDG‐PET in patients with recurrent colorectal carcinoma are scarce, especially those on colorectal liver metastases. To assess the usefulness of this emerging modality for the selection of patients to undergo resection for colorectal liver metastases, a systematic (meta)‐analysis of the current literature was conducted. In the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials, a traditional meta‐analysis could not be performed. An alternative strategy was designed to evaluate the current literature. After a literature search, an index score was devised to evaluate the articles with regard to the impact of FDG‐PET in patients with colorectal liver metastases. The index scored articles on several items and, as such, could be considered an objective approach for the assessment of diagnostic, nonrandomized clinical trials. The proposed index proved to be an independent instrument for judging several research questions and was used systematically to address the sensitivity, specificity, and clinical impact of FDG‐PET in patients with colorectal liver metastases. For FDG‐PET, the pooled sensitivity and specificity results were 88.0% and 96.1%, respectively, for hepatic disease and 91.5% and 95.4%, respectively, for extrahepatic disease. For the 6 articles that reported the highest scores on the index, the sensitivity and specificity of FDG‐PET for hepatic metastatic disease were 79.9% and 92.3%, respectively, and 91.2% and 98.4%, respectively, for extrahepatic disease, respectively. For computed tomography, the pooled sensitivity and specificity results were 82.7% and 84.1%, respectively, for hepatic lesions and 60.9% and 91.1%, respectively, for extrahepatic lesions. The percentage change in clinical management due to FDG‐PET was 31.6% (range, 20.0–58.0%) in the articles that scored above the mean and reported this item. For the 6 highest scoring studies, the percentage change in clinical management was 25.0% (range, 20.0–32.0%). Despite apparent omissions in the literature, the combined sensitivity and specificity of FDG‐PET clearly indicated that FDG‐PET has added value in the diagnostic workup of patients with colorectal liver metastases. FDG‐PET can be considered a useful tool in preoperative staging and produced superior results compared with conventional diagnostic modalities, especially for excluding or detecting extrahepatic disease. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

[1]  G. Coates,et al.  Selection of patients for resection of hepatic metastases: improved detection of extrahepatic disease with FDG pet. , 2001, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[2]  L. Mortelmans,et al.  Clinical value of whole‐body positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in recurrent colorectal cancer , 1994, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[4]  S. Yasuda,et al.  Colorectal cancer recurrence in the liver: detection by PET. , 1998, The Tokai journal of experimental and clinical medicine.

[5]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Lotty Hooft,et al.  How to perform a comprehensive search for FDG-PET literature , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  M P Sandler,et al.  Evaluation of benign vs malignant hepatic lesions with positron emission tomography. , 1998, Archives of surgery.

[8]  W. Oyen,et al.  Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  David Moher,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[10]  P. Valk,et al.  Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. , 1999, Archives of surgery.

[11]  T. Kinoshitá,et al.  Prognostic factors for poor survival after repeat hepatectomy in patients with colorectal liver metastases. , 2003, Surgery.

[12]  L. Mortelmans,et al.  Clinical value of whole-body positron emission tomography in potentially curable colorectal liver metastases☆ , 2001 .

[13]  B. Siegal,et al.  Survival of patients staged by FDG-PET before resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. , 2002, Annals of surgery.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[15]  M. Mix,et al.  Impact of 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography for decision making in colorectal cancer recurrences , 2000, Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.

[16]  J. Fleshman,et al.  Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography , 1997, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[17]  M. Lonneux,et al.  FDG-PET improves the staging and selection of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  M. Fulham,et al.  The role of whole-body positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in identifying operable colorectal cancer metastases to the liver. , 1996, Archives of surgery.

[19]  T. Ruers,et al.  Treatment of liver metastases, an update on the possibilities and results. , 2002, European journal of cancer.

[20]  P. Dupont,et al.  Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  S. Seki,et al.  Clinical usefulness of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the diagnosis of liver tumors , 2000, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[22]  L. Mortelmans,et al.  Unexplained rising carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer: the utility of positron emission tomography (PET). , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[23]  I. Carrió,et al.  FDG-PET improves the management of patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer , 2002, Nuclear medicine communications.

[24]  D. Roseman,et al.  Survival after repeat hepatic resection for recurrent colorectal hepatic metastases. , 1996, Surgery.

[25]  W. Chapman,et al.  Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. , 1997, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  B. Siegel,et al.  Usefulness of intraoperative sonography for revealing hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients selected for surgery after undergoing FDG PET. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  D. Visvikis,et al.  The impact of FDG-PET on the management algorithm for recurrent colorectal cancer , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[28]  K. Slim,et al.  Methodological index for non‐randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument , 2003, ANZ journal of surgery.

[29]  Larson,et al.  Whole-Body FDG-PET in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma. A Comparative Study with CT. , 2000, Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T.

[30]  A. Alavi,et al.  The role of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-deoxyglucose in identifying colorectal cancer metastases to liver , 2000, Nuclear medicine communications.

[31]  G. Marchal,et al.  Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. , 1995, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[32]  S S Gambhir,et al.  A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[33]  Edward J. Martin,et al.  Correlating computed tomography and positron emission tomography scan with operative findings in metastatic colorectal cancer , 2001, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[34]  Kenneth Hess,et al.  Recurrence and Outcomes Following Hepatic Resection, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Combined Resection/Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases , 2004, Annals of surgery.

[35]  Ying Lu,et al.  Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. , 2002, Radiology.

[36]  H. Schirrmeister,et al.  Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? , 2000, American journal of surgery.

[37]  M. Makuuchi,et al.  Single and multiple resections of multiple hepatic metastases of colorectal origin. , 2004, Surgery.

[38]  F. Gleeson,et al.  New techniques for imaging colorectal cancer: the use of MRI, PET and radioimmunoscintigraphy for primary staging and follow-up. , 2002, British medical bulletin.

[39]  W. Chapman,et al.  Positron emission tomography to stage suspected metastatic colorectal carcinoma to the liver. , 1996, American journal of surgery.

[40]  Y. Shiau,et al.  Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of recurrent colorectal cancer. , 2001, Anticancer research.

[41]  J. Fleshman,et al.  Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum , 2000, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[42]  G. Zibari,et al.  The Use of FDG-Positron Emission Tomography for the Evaluation of Colorectal Metastases of the Liver , 1999, The American surgeon.

[43]  E. Martin,et al.  Positron Emission Tomography Affects Surgical Management in Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Patients , 2003, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[44]  I. Riphagen,et al.  Update of the FDG PET search strategy , 2004, Nuclear medicine communications.

[45]  S. Larson,et al.  Utility of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. , 1999, American journal of surgery.

[46]  B. Siegel,et al.  Survival of Patients Evaluated by FDG-PET Before Hepatic Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma: A Prospective Database Study , 2001, Annals of surgery.

[47]  R. Parks,et al.  The extent of resection influences outcome following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. , 2004, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[48]  B. Siegel,et al.  Utility of FDG-PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[49]  W. Oyen,et al.  Efficacy of fluorine-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in detecting tumor recurrence after local ablative therapy for liver metastases: a prospective study. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[50]  Rosalie J. Hagge,et al.  The Role of F-18 FDG Positron Emission Tomography in Preoperative Assessment of the Liver in Patients Being Considered for Curative Resection of Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer , 2002, Clinical nuclear medicine.