Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Value of CT, FDG PET-CT and serum tumor markers in staging recurrent colorectal cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Serum tumor markers and computed tomography (CT) are the most widely accepted monitoring tools for the follow-up patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is a promising modality for the evaluation of recurrent CRC. The purpose of this study was to (1) investigate the sensitivity and specificity of serum tumor marker assay, CT and FDG PET-CT, (2) determine the correlation of these markers with FDG PET-CT quantitative indices such as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) in patients suspected to have recurrent CRC.

Patients

FDG PET-CT imaging was performed in 212 patients with possible CRC recurrence. A retrospective study was performed on patients with (1) a history of CRC with complete remission after treatment, (2) pathology of adenocarcinoma and (3) increase in cancer antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) and/or carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) or suspicious radiological evaluation during follow-up after complete remission.

Methods

All patients underwent integrated FDG PET-CT scan. Serum tumor markers were obtained within 3 months of PET-CT. All enrolled cases showed increase in a tumor marker over the reference value on at least two serial measurements or abnormal CT scan before PET-CT was performed. Results were compared with histopathological findings or clinical follow-up.

Results

Following exclusion of 57 patients with missing data or lost to follow-up, 155 patients (87 men, mean age: 61 years) remained for final analysis. Serum CEA and CA 19-9 had a sensitivity of 74 and 35 % and specificity of 86 and 83 % for the detection recurrent CRC, respectively. The sensitivities of CT and FDG PET-CT were 79 and 92 % and specificities were 45 and 100 %, respectively. At an adaptive threshold of 42 %, the median SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV and TLG of these lesions were 8.8, 5.2, 11.3 cm\(^3\) and 55.4, respectively. All FDG PET-CT quantitative parameters correlated positively with serum CEA levels, and the correlation coefficients were 0.45, 0.44 and 0.49 for SUVmax, MTV and TLG \((p<0.0001)\).

Conclusion

PET-CT scan, CEA and CA-19-9 results were correlated. However, both tumor markers had poor sensitivity to detect metastatic disease. PET-CT is more accurate than CT in detecting recurrent CRC in this study. Majority of the recurrences were in the liver and the sensitivity is affected by tumor histology. The correlation between semiquantitative FDG PET parameters and serum tumor marker levels is moderate.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sagar PM, Pemberton JH (1996) Surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 83(3):293–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Galandiuk S, Wieland HS, Moertel CG, Cha SS, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG (1992) Patterns of recurrence after curative resection of carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 174(1):27–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maas M, Rutten IJ, Nelemans PJ, Lambregts DM, Cappendijk VC, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RG (2011) What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis: imaging for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(8):1560–1571

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, Laurie JA, Tangen C (1993) An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA 270(8):943–947

  5. Ito K, Kato T, Tadokoro M, Ishiguchi T, Oshima M, Ishigaki T, Sakuma S (1992) Recurrent rectal cancer and scar: differentiation with PET and MR imaging. Radiology 82(2):549–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Connor OJ, McDermott S, Slattery J, Sahani D, Blake MA (2011) The Use of PET-CT in the assessment of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Int J Surg Oncol 2011: Article ID 846512, 14 pp. doi:10.1155/2011/846512

  7. Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, Merckx E, Mortelmans L, Bormans G, Marchal G, Filez L, Aerts R (1995) Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 21(5):517–521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE, Hogg A, Binns D, McKenzie AF (2002) The clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of colorectal cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 43(4):492–499

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arulampalam T, Costa D, Visvikis D, Boulos P, Taylor I, Ell P (2001) The impact of FDG-PET on the management algorithm for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl 28(12):1758–1765

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, Schwimmer J, Czernin J, Phelps ME, Gambhir SS (2000) A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 41(7):1177–1189

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME (2001) A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 42(5 Suppl):1S–93S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bai B, Bading J, Conti PS (2013) Tumor quantification in clinical positron emission tomography. Theranostics 3(10):787–801

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(5 suppl 1):122S–150S

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Esfahani SA, Heidari P, Halpern EF, Hochberg EP, Palmer EL, Mahmood U (2013) Baseline total lesion glycolysis measured with (18) F-FDG PET/CT as a predictor of progression-free survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a pilot study. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 3(3):272–281

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, Casilla C, Fazzari M, Srivastava N, Yeung HW, Humm JL, Guillem J, Downey R, Karpeh M, Cohen AE, Ginsberg R (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2(3): 159–171

  16. Manohar K, Mittal BR, Bhattacharya A, Malhotra P, Varma S (2012) Prognostic value of quantitative parameters derived on initial staging 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun 33(9):974–981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, Shih MC, Shimada N, Chen S, Salgia R, Appelbaum DE, Suzuki K, Chen CT, Pu Y (2012) Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(1):27–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jo HJ, Kim SJ, Lee HY, Kim IJ (2014) Prediction of survival and cancer recurrence using metabolic volumetric parameters measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with surgically resected rectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 39(6):493–497

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee P, Weerasuriya DK, Lavori PW, Quon A, Hara W, Maxim PG, Le QT, Wakelee HA, Donington JS, Graves EE, Loo BW Jr (2007) Metabolic tumor burden predicts for disease progression and death in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(2):328–333

  20. Gupta A, Sharma P, Patel CD, Maharjan S, Pandey A, Kumar R, Malhotra A (2011) Size-dependent thresholding as an optimal method for tumor volume delineation on positron emission tomography-computed tomography: a phantom study. Indian J Nucl Med 26(1):22–26

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Biehl KJ, Kong FM, Dehdashti F, Jin JY, Mutic S, El Naqa I, Siegel BA, Bradley JD (2006) 18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate? J Nucl Med 47(11):1808–1812

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ugrinska A, Bombardieri E, Stokkel MP, Crippa F, Pauwels EK (2002) Circulating tumor markers and nuclear medicine imaging modalities: breast, prostate and ovarian cancer. Q J Nucl Med 46(2):88–104

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Deleau C, Buecher B, Rousseau C, Kraeber-Bodéré F, Flamant M (2011) Clinical impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan/computed tomography in comparison with computed tomography on the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(3):275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mittal BR, Senthil R, Kashyap R, Bhattacharya A, Singh B, Kapoor R, Gupta R (2011) 18F-FDG PET-CT in evaluation of postoperative colorectal cancer patients with rising CEA level. Nucl Med Commun 32(9):789–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Metser U, You J, McSweeney S, Freeman M, Hendler A (2010) Assessment of tumor recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer and elevated carcinoembryonic antigen level: FDG PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced 64-MDCT of the chest and abdomen. Am J Roentgenol 194(3):766–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rieber A, Nüssle K, Stöhr I, Grab D, Fenchel S, Kreienberg R, Reske SN, Brambs HJ (2001) Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(1):123–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trask DD, Birnbaum EH, Fleshman JW, Read TE, Philpott GW, Kodner IJ (1997) Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 4(8):613–620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. de Geus-Oei LF, Ruers TJ, Punt CJ, Leer JW, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ (2006) FDG-PET in colorectal cancer. Cancer Imaging 31(6):S71–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, Gutman M, Levine C, Rabau M, Figer A, Metser U (2004) Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 232(3):815–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kau T, Reinprecht P, Eicher W, Lind P, Starlinger M, Hausegger KA (2009) FDG PET/CT in the detection of recurrent rectal cancer. Int Surg 94(4):315–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Moore HG, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Minsky BD, Mazumdar M, Guillem JG (2003) 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 197(1):22–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kubota R, Kubota K, Yamada S, Tada M, Ido T, Tamahashi N (1994) Microautoradiographic study for the differentiation of intratumoral macrophages, granulation tissues and cancer cells by the dynamics of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. J Nucl Med 35(1):104–112

  35. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, Pruim J, Price P (1999) Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 35(13):1773–1782

  36. Liu FY, Chen JS, Changchien CR, Yeh CY, Liu SH, Ho KC, Yen TC (2005) Utility of 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in managing patients of colorectal cancer with unexplained carcinoembryonic antigen elevation at different levels. Dis Colon Rectum 8(10):1900–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Esteves FP, Schuster DM, Halkar RK (2006) Gastrointestinal tract malignancies and positron emission tomography: an overview. Semin Nucl Med 36(2):169–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McCall JL, Black RB, Rich CA, Harvey JR, Baker RA, Watts JM, Toouli J (1994) The value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in predicting recurrent disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 37(9):875–881

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Saad A, Kanate A, Sehbai A, Marano G, Hobbs G, Abraham J (2008) Correlation among [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, cancer antigen 27.29, and circulating tumor cell testing in metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 8(4):357–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Evangelista L, Baretta Z, Vinante L, Cervino AR, Gregianin M, Ghiotto C, Saladini G, Sotti G (2011) Tumour markers and FDG PET/CT for prediction of disease relapse in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(2):293–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nagamachi S, Wakamatsu H, Kiyohara S, Fujita s, Nishii R, Arita h, Futami S, Tamura S (2009) Which FDG Pet/CT quantitative indices (SUVmax, metabolic volume total lesion glycolysis) correlate well with serum tumor markers in NSCLC, colon cancer and pancreatic cancer? J Nucl Med 50(suppl 2):1722

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hacettepe University Medical Faculty, Siihiye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey

    Meltem Caglar & Can Yener

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Medical Faculty, Siihiye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey

    Erdem Karabulut

Authors
  1. Meltem Caglar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Can Yener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erdem Karabulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meltem Caglar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caglar, M., Yener, C. & Karabulut, E. Value of CT, FDG PET-CT and serum tumor markers in staging recurrent colorectal cancer. Int J CARS 10, 993–1002 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1115-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1115-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation