Community Forum top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

Go Back   Community Forum > The Internet Medical Journal > News
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 8th, 2003, 15:43
sysadmin sysadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: 2001
Posts: 1,085
PET Improves Management of Patients With Suspected Colorectal Cancer Recurrence

TITLE: FDG-PET Improves the Management of Patients With Suspected Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer.

REF: Simo M, Lomen F: Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23 (October): 975-982

BACKGROUND: 40% of patients who have undergone their first surgery for colorectal cancer present with suspected recurrence within the first 2 years of follow-up. Anatomic imaging modalities have limited sensitivity and specificity, especially due to the distorted anatomy after surgery and radiation therapy.

PATIENTS: 120 patients with suspected colorectal cancer recurrence were studied with FDG PET.

FINDINGS: 58 pts were referred to PET due to rising CEA levels. 31 patients were referred due to inconclusive conventional imaging. 25 patients had known recurrence and were referred to PET for pre-surgical assessment. 6 pts were referred due to abdominal pain. A MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHANGE was defined as when medical treatment was changed to surgical, surgical treatment to medical or to no treatment. Of the 58 patients referred to PET due to rising CEA levels, PET led to a major management change in 34(58%). Of the 31 patients referred due to inconclusive conventional imaging, PET led to a major management change in 14 (45%). Of the 25 referred for pre-surgical evaluation, PET led to a major management change in 8 patients (32%). Overall, PET resulted in a major management change in 58/120 patients (48%).

CONCLUSION: FDG PET results in more appropriate therapy in nearly half of patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer who are referred to PET.

COMMENT: it is not clear how many patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer are not referred to PET, and why they are not referred. This study strongly suggests that ALL patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer get an FDG PET scan. A major management change of 48% certainly is clinically significant. Both patients who are considered inoperable by conventional imaging, and patients considered operative candidates by conventional imaging can have their management changed due to FDG PET imaging.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Management of Colorectal Cancer sysadmin News 0 August 23rd, 2004 09:21
Novel Molecular Imaging Procedure Used to Identify Metastatic Prostate Cancer sysadmin News 0 June 27th, 2004 10:12
The Solitary Pulmonary Nodule: ACCP Guidelines sysadmin News 0 July 4th, 2003 09:17
August 2002 sysadmin News 0 September 2nd, 2002 19:44
Meta-analysis: Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculos in Crohn's Disease sysadmin Articles 0 September 24th, 2001 14:48


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.



Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.  
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

We are committed to your good health. That means that while we provide editorial medical information, we must insist that you work with your own doctor in regards to your personal health issues. All content on Medjournal.Com is strictly editorial. It constitutes medical opinion, NOT ADVICE. We do not endorse or recommend the content of Medjournal.com or the sites that are linked FROM or TO Medjournal.com. Use common sense by consulting with your doctor before making any lifestyle changes or other medical decisions based on the content of these web pages. Medjournal.Com and the Internet Medical Journal shall not be held liable for any errors in content, advertising, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.