Incidental colorectal focal ¹⁸F-FDG uptake: a novel indication for colonoscopy

Abstract

Background and study aims The relevance of incidental colorectal focal ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT uptake is debatable. All patients who were referred for colonoscopy because of incidental colonic focal FDG uptake were included in this retrospective study.

Patients and methods PET/CT imaging characteristics were reviewed by a nuclear physician who was blinded to endoscopic and histopathological findings to determine the location of FDG uptake sites and to measure the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and metabolic volume (MV). Endoscopic findings were categorized as malignant lesions (ML), high-risk polyps (HRP), low-risk polyps (LRP) or other non-neoplastic lesions (NNL).

Results Seventy patients with 84 foci of FDG uptake were included. The proportions of true-positive (lesions found at colonoscopy at the same location) and false-positive (no lesion at colonoscopy) PET/CT findings were 65.5 % (n = 55) and 34.5 % (n = 29). Median SUVmax values did not differ between true-positive and false-positive findings (P = 0.27). Median MV30 values differed significantly between true-positive (5.5 cm³, [3.3 – 10.9 cm³]) and false-positive (9.7 cm³, [5.2 – 40.8 cm³]) findings (P = 0.015). Among the 55 true-positive FDG uptake sites, there were 14 (25.5 %) malignant lesions, 30 (54.5 %) HRP, 4 (7.3 %) LRP, and 7 (12.7 %) NNL. Median MV30 values differed significantly between advanced neoplasia (5.0 cm³, [2.9 – 9.7 cm³]) and other endoscopic findings (9.4 cm³, [5.2 – 39.8 cm³]) (P = 0.001); the AUROC was 0.71. By per-colonic segment analysis, the distribution of true-positive, false-negative, false-positive, and true-negative FDG PET/CT findings was as follows: 21.5 %, 14.2 %, 11.5 %, and 52.8 %, respectively.

Conclusion Our study demonstrates that follow-up complete colonoscopy is mandatory in all patients with incidental colorectal focal ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT uptake.

• References

• 1 Agress H, Cooper BZ. Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2004; 230: 417-422
• 2 Even-Sapir E, Lerman H, Gutman M. et al. The presentation of malignant tumours and pre-malignant lesions incidentally found on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 541-552
• 3 Ozkol V, Alper E, Aydin N. et al. The clinical value of incidental 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-avid foci detected on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun 2010; 31: 128-136
• 4 Ishimori T, Patel PV, Wahl RL. Detection of unexpected additional primary malignancies with PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 752-757
• 5 Beatty JS, Williams HT, Aldridge BA. et al. Incidental PET/CT findings in the cancer patient: how should they be managed?. Surgery 2009; 146: 274-281
• 6 Treglia G, Taralli S, Salsano M. et al. Prevalence and malignancy risk of focal colorectal incidental uptake detected by 18F-FDG-PET or PET/CT: a meta-analysis. Radiol Oncol 2014; 48: 99-104
• 7 Şimşek FS, İspiroğlu M, Taşdemir B. et al. What approach should we take for the incidental finding of increased 18F-FDG uptake foci in the colon on PET/CT?. Nucl Med Commun 2015; 36: 1195-1201
• 8 Tatlidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR. et al. Incidental colonic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: correlation with colonoscopic and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2002; 224: 783-787
• 9 Salazar AndíaG, Prieto SorianoA, Ortega CandilA. et al. Clinical relevance of incidental finding of focal uptakes in the colon during 18F-FDG PET/CT studies in oncology patients without known colorectal carcinoma and evaluation of the impact on management. Rev Esp Med Nucl E Imagen Mol 2012; 31: 15-21
• 10 Gutman F, Alberini J-L, Wartski M. et al. Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 495-500
• 11 Peng J, He Y, Xu J. et al. Detection of incidental colorectal tumours with 18F-labelled 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 2011; 13: e374-378
• 12 Treglia G, Calcagni ML, Rufini V. et al. Clinical significance of incidental focal colorectal (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: our experience and a review of the literature. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 2012; 14: 174-180
• 13 Fuertes J, Montagut C, Bullich S. et al. Incidental focal uptake in colorectal location on oncologic FDG PET and PET/CT studies: histopathological findings and clinical significances. Rev Esp Med Nucl E Imagen Mol 2015; 34: 95-101
• 14 Rainis T, Kaidar-Person O, Keran D. et al. Correlation between incidental FDG PET/CT colorectal observations and endoscopic and histopathological results. Oncol Lett 2014; 7: 479-482
• 15 Purandare NC, Gawade SK, Puranik AD. et al. Etiology and significance of incidentally detected focal colonic uptake on FDG PET/CT. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2012; 22: 260-266
• 16 Oh J-R, Min J-J, Song H-C. et al. A stepwise approach using metabolic volume and SUVmax to differentiate malignancy and dysplasia from benign colonic uptakes on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37: e134-140
• 17 Putora PM, Müller J, Borovicka J. et al. Relevance of incidental colorectal FDG-PET/CT-enhanced lesions. Onkologie 2013; 36: 200-204
• 18 Fleming M, Knox M, Kennedy MJ. Incidental detection of colorectal malignancies using FDG PET-CT. Ir Med J 2013; 106: 151-153
• 19 Kei PL, Vikram R, Yeung HWD. et al. Incidental finding of focal FDG uptake in the bowel during PET/CT: CT features and correlation with histopathologic results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W401-406
• 20 Van Hoeij FB, Keijsers RGM, Loffeld BC. et al. Incidental colonic focal FDG uptake on PET/CT: can the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) guide us in the timing of colonoscopy?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 66-71
• 21 Keyzer C, Dhaene B, Blocklet D. et al. Colonoscopic findings in patients with incidental colonic focal FDG uptake. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: W586-591
• 22 Weston BR, Iyer RB, Qiao W. et al. Ability of integrated positron emission and computed tomography to detect significant colonic pathology. Cancer 2010; 116: 1454-1461
• 23 Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA. 18F-FDG Imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol 2005; 33: 145-155
• 24 Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. RadioGraphics 1999; 19: 61-77
• 25 Cho SH, Kim SW, Kim WC. et al. Incidental focal colorectal 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol WJG 2013; 19: 3453-3458
• 26 Lee C, Koh S-J, Kim JW. et al. Incidental colonic 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: do we need colonoscopy for patients with focal uptake confined to the left-sided colon?. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 229-235
• 27 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 28 Luboldt W, Volker T, Wiedemann B. et al. Detection of relevant colonic neoplasms with PET/CT: promising accuracy with minimal CT dose and a standardised PET cut-off. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 2274-2285
• 29 Na S-Y, Kim K-J, Han S. et al. Who should undergo a colonoscopy among patients with incidental colon uptake on PET-CT?. Scand J Gastroenterol 2015; 50: 1045-1053
• 30 Erichsen R, Baron JA, Hamilton-Dutoit SJ. et al. Increased risk of colorectal cancer development among patients with serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 895-902 .e5
• 31 Atkin W, Valori R, Kuipers E. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition – Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44: SE151-SE163