These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The value of PET/CT for preoperative staging of advanced gastric cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT.
    Author: Kim EY, Lee WJ, Choi D, Lee SJ, Choi JY, Kim BT, Kim HS.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 2011 Aug; 79(2):183-8. PubMed ID: 20226612.
    Abstract:
    AIM: To date, no data are available on the use of PET/CT for preoperative staging of gastric cancer. We attempted to evaluate the value of PET/CT for preoperative staging of advanced gastric cancer, and to compare the use of PET/CT with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed PET/CT of 78 patients with surgically proven advanced gastric cancer who had undergone preoperative CECT. Qualitative analysis was conducted by assessing the presence of primary tumors and metastases with PET/CT and CECT. RESULTS: Among 71 patients who underwent a gastrectomy, 69 primary tumors (93%) were diagnosed by PET/CT, while 64 primary tumors (90%) were detected by CECT (p=0.55). For regional lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of PET/CT vs. CECT were 41% vs. 25% (p=0.00019), 100% vs. 92% (p=0.31), 100% vs. 98% (p=0.46), 26% vs. 42% (p=0.14), and 51% vs. 72% (p=0.00089), respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, PET/CT showed comparable diagnostic performance to CECT in diagnosing primary tumors and regional lymph node metastases, though PET/CT was inferior to CECT for the sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing regional lymph node metastases. Nevertheless, PET/CT would be useful when CECT findings were equivocal due to its high positive predictability.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]