Diagnostic value of CT and Pet CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis

Preliminary study

Authors

  • Álvaro Castro Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital Pasteur, Clínica Quirúrgica “1”
  • Leandro Telles Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital Pasteur, Clínica Quirúrgica “1”
  • Gabriela Rodríguez Cantera Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital Pasteur, Clínica Quirúrgica “1”
  • Daniel González Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital Pasteur, Clínica Quirúrgica “1”
  • Fernando González Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital Pasteur, Clínica Quirúrgica “1”
  • Luis Ruso Martínez Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Hospital Pasteur, Clínica Quirúrgica “1”

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29193/RMU.36.2.5

Keywords:

PERITONEAL NEOPLASMS, CARCINOMA, PERITONEUM, INDUCED HYPERTHERMIA, POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Abstract

Imagenology contributes to the accurate diagnosis of peritoneal compromise in the assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis, although its effectiveness is still limited. CT is the most frequently used study and PET/CT is graduallly more requested in the assessment of different neoplasms. This study aims to assess performance of CT and PET/CT for diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis in digestive and gynecological tumours.
Method: retrospective, observational study of 11 cases operated on peritoneal carcinomatosis after a CT and/or PET/CT had been performed. The results of both image studies were analysed separately and altogether and they were subsequently compared to intraoperative and pathology studies.
Results: CT matched findings in 8 out of 10 cases (sensitivity 78%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 33%), whereas PET/TC matched in 9 out of 11 patients (sensitivity 100%, PPV 81%). When considered together, sensitivity was 100% y el PPV de 82%.
Conclusions: the results of the study confirm imagenology studies overestimate peritoneal carcinomatosis based on the characteristics of nodules and its uptake pattern. In CT/PET, SUV> 6 could increase the probability of diagnosing carcinomatosis. This small series of cases enables our suggesting CT and 18F-FDG PET-TC to be requested and analysed together to increase its efficiency, although surgical exploration continues to be the most effective method to diagnose and assess peritoneal carcinomatosis.

References

(1) Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, de Bree E, van Slooten GW, van Tinteren H, Boot H, et al. Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:3737-43.
(2) Glehen O, Kwiatkowski F, Sugarbaker PH, Elias D, Levine EA, De Simone M, et al. Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:3284-92.
(3) Stephens AD, Alderman R, Chang D, Edwards GD, Esquivel J, Sebbag G, et al. Morbidity and mortality analysis of 200 treatments with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraoperative intraoperitoneal chemotherapy using the coliseum technique. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6:790-6.
(4) Verwaal VJ, van Tinteren H, Ruth SV, Zoetmulder FA. Toxicity of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol 2004; 85:61-7.
(5) Sugarbaker PH. Early intervention for treatment and prevention of colorectal carcinomatosis: a plan individualized care. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2012; 21:689-703.
(6) Kim SJ, Lee SW. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2018; 91(1081):20170519.
(7) Sanli Y, Turkmen C, Bakir B, Iyibozkurt C, Ozel S, Has D, et al. Diagnostic value of PET/CT is similar to that of conventional MRI and even better for detecting small peritoneal implants in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2012; 33:509-15.
(8) de Bree E, Koops W, Kroger R, van Ruth S, Witkamp AJ, Zoetmulder FA. Peritoneal carcinomatosis colorectal or appendiceal origin: correlation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. Surg Oncol 2004; 86(2):64-73.
(9) Jacquet P, Felinek JS, Steves MA, Sugarbaker PH. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer 1993; 72:1631-6.
(10) Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:1407-12.
(11) Suzuki A, Kawano T, Takahashi N, Lee J, Nakagami Y, Miyagi E, et al. Value of 18F-FDG PET in the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:1413-20.
(12) Tanaka T, Kawai Y, Kanai M, Taki Y, Nakamoto Y, Takabayashi A. Usefulness of FDG-positron emission tomography in diagnosing peritoneal recurrence of colorectal cancer. Am J Surg 2002; 184:433-6.
(13) Nahmias C, Wahl L. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:1804-8.
(14) Schillaci O. Use of dual-point fluorodeoxyglucose imaging to enhance sensitivity and specificit. Semin Nucl Med 2012; 42:267-80. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2012.02.003.
(15) Roze JF, Hoogendam JP, van de Wetering FT, Spijker R, Verleye L, Vlayen J, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessing tumour resectability in advanced epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 10(10):CD012567. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012567. pub2.
(16) Bushati M, Rovers KP, Sommariva A, Sugarbaker PH, Morris DL, Yonemura Y, et al. The current practice of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases: results of a worldwide web-based survey of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI). Eur J Surg Oncol 2018; 44:1942-8.
(17) Dromain C, Leboulleux S, Auperin A, Goere D, Malka D, Lumbroso J, et al. Staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis: enhanced CT vs. PET/TC. Abdom Imaging 2008; 33:87-93.
(18) Berthelot C, Morel O, Girault S, Verrièle V, Poirier A-L, Moroch J, et al. Use of FDG-PET/TC for peritoneal carcinomatosis before hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Nucl Med Comm 2011; 32:23-9.
(19) Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF, Ogunbiyi OA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43:767-70.
(20) Higashi K, Ueda Y, Seki H, Yuasa K, Oguchi M, Noguchi T, et al. Fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging is negative in bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:1016-20.
(21) Rubini G, Altini C, Notaristefano A, Merenda N, Rubini D, Stabile Ianora AA, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/TC in diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis in the restaging of patient with ovarian cancer as compared to contrast enhanced CT and tumor marker Ca-125. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2014; 33:22-7.
(22) Li J, Yan R , Lei J, Jiang C. Comparison of PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40:2660-6.
(23) Schwenzer NF, Schmidt H, Gatidis S, Brendle C, Müller M, Königsrainer I, et al. Measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient with simultaneous MR/positron emission tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis: comparison with 18F-FDG-PET. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40(5):1121-8.

Published

2020-04-21

How to Cite

1.
Castro Álvaro, Telles L, Rodríguez Cantera G, González D, González F, Ruso Martínez L. Diagnostic value of CT and Pet CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis: Preliminary study. Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2020 Apr. 21 [cited 2024 Sep. 16];36(2):155-62. Available from: https://revista.rmu.org.uy/index.php/rmu/article/view/531

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>