PURPOSE: Pre- and post-treatment staging of anal cancer are often inaccurate. The role of positron emission tomograpy-computed tomography (PET-CT) in anal cancer is yet to be defined. The aim of the study was to compare PET-CT with CT scan, sentinel node biopsy results of inguinal lymph nodes, and anal biopsy results in staging and in follow-up of anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-three consecutive patients diagnosed with anal cancer underwent PET-CT. Results were compared with computed tomography (CT), performed in 40 patients, and with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) (41 patients) at pretreatment workup. Early follow-up consisted of a digital rectal examination, an anoscopy, a PET-CT scan, and anal biopsies performed at 1 and 3 months after the end of treatment. Data sets were then compared. RESULTS: At pretreatment assessment, anal cancer was identified by PET-CT in 47 patients (88.7%) and by CT in 30 patients (75%). The detection rates rose to 97.9% with PET-CT and to 82.9% with CT (P=.042) when the 5 patients who had undergone surgery prior to this assessment and whose margins were positive at histological examination were censored. Perirectal and/or pelvic nodes were considered metastatic by PET-CT in 14 of 53 patients (26.4%) and by CT in 7 of 40 patients (17.5%). SNB was superior to both PET-CT and CT in detecting inguinal lymph nodes. PET-CT upstaged 37.5% of patients and downstaged 25% of patients. Radiation fields were changed in 12.6% of patients. PET-CT at 3 months was more accurate than PET-CT at 1 month in evaluating outcomes after chemoradiation therapy treatment: sensitivity was 100% vs 66.6%, and specificity was 97.4% vs 92.5%, respectively. Median follow-up was 20.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, PET-CT detected the primary tumor more often than CT. Staging of perirectal/pelvic or inguinal lymph nodes was better with PET-CT. SNB was more accurate in staging inguinal lymph nodes.

Role of positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the management of anal cancer

RICARDI, Umberto;CASSONI, Paola;C. Filippini;CRAVERO, Francesca;MORINO, Mario
2012-01-01

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pre- and post-treatment staging of anal cancer are often inaccurate. The role of positron emission tomograpy-computed tomography (PET-CT) in anal cancer is yet to be defined. The aim of the study was to compare PET-CT with CT scan, sentinel node biopsy results of inguinal lymph nodes, and anal biopsy results in staging and in follow-up of anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-three consecutive patients diagnosed with anal cancer underwent PET-CT. Results were compared with computed tomography (CT), performed in 40 patients, and with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) (41 patients) at pretreatment workup. Early follow-up consisted of a digital rectal examination, an anoscopy, a PET-CT scan, and anal biopsies performed at 1 and 3 months after the end of treatment. Data sets were then compared. RESULTS: At pretreatment assessment, anal cancer was identified by PET-CT in 47 patients (88.7%) and by CT in 30 patients (75%). The detection rates rose to 97.9% with PET-CT and to 82.9% with CT (P=.042) when the 5 patients who had undergone surgery prior to this assessment and whose margins were positive at histological examination were censored. Perirectal and/or pelvic nodes were considered metastatic by PET-CT in 14 of 53 patients (26.4%) and by CT in 7 of 40 patients (17.5%). SNB was superior to both PET-CT and CT in detecting inguinal lymph nodes. PET-CT upstaged 37.5% of patients and downstaged 25% of patients. Radiation fields were changed in 12.6% of patients. PET-CT at 3 months was more accurate than PET-CT at 1 month in evaluating outcomes after chemoradiation therapy treatment: sensitivity was 100% vs 66.6%, and specificity was 97.4% vs 92.5%, respectively. Median follow-up was 20.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, PET-CT detected the primary tumor more often than CT. Staging of perirectal/pelvic or inguinal lymph nodes was better with PET-CT. SNB was more accurate in staging inguinal lymph nodes.
2012
84
1
66
72
M. Mistrangelo; E. Pelosi; M. Bello’; U. Ricardi; E. Milanesi; P. Cassoni; M. Baccega; C. Filippini; P. Racca; A. Lesca; FH. Munoz; G. Fora; A. Skanjeti; F. Cravero; M. Morino
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
role of postron1-s2.0-S0360301611034560-main.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 369.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
369.4 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Role of Positron Emission Tomography.pdf

Open Access dal 01/04/2013

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 462.16 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
462.16 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/104108
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 26
  • Scopus 67
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 59
social impact