The diagnostic performance of an [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT algorithm for preoperative evaluation of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a retrospective study

Abstract

Purpose

In this retrospective study, we evaluated the diagnostic value of [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in preoperative assessment of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and to develop a PET-based diagnostic algorithm for ECC.

Material and Methods

Patients with suspected ECC with biliary obstruction were included. Patients received [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT scan and image analysis. FDG uptake was semi-quantified using the SUV_max of the suspected primary tumor, lymph nodes and metastatic lesions. Sex, age, tumor location, enhancement patterns and tumor size were analyzed using binary logistic regression for prediction of ECC on PET images.

Results

The study included 238 ECC patients and 42 patients with benign diseases. The lesion was located in the common bile duct in 67.50% patients and in the hilar region in 31.79% patients. [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT scan showed a sensitivity of 70.6% and a specificity of 76.2% for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with extrahepatic lesions, with a positive predictive value of 94.4% and a negative predictive value of 31.4% and an accuracy of 71.4%. Forced entry logistic regression analysis showed that age (OR 1.07, 95%CI, 1.03 to 1.10) and detection of ECC by [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT scan (OR 6.15, 95% CI, 2.00 to 19.10) were predictors of ECC. A PET-based scoring algorithm had an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.88) and had a sensitivity of 61.3% and a specificity of 88.1% for ECC. The algorithm had a significantly better diagnostic performance than [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT scan (Chi square test, P <0.001).

Conclusion

The PET-based algorithm shows improved diagnostic performance for the detection of ECC and could facilitate early diagnosis and staging of ECC.

Keywords

extrahepatic cholangiocarcinom - 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG PET/CT) - AUC - sensitivity - specificity - algorithm

Publication History

Received: 03 May 2024

Accepted after revision: 17 March 2025

Article published online:
26 May 2025

• References

• 1 Florio AA, Ferlay J, Znaor A. et al. Global trends in intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma incidence from 1993 to 2012. Cancer 2020; 126: 2666-2678
• 2 Brindley PJ, Bachini M, Ilyas SI. et al. Cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021; 7: 65
• 3 Garikipati SC, Roy P. Biliary Tract Cholangiocarcinoma. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2022.
• 4 Banales JM, Marin JJG, Lamarca A. et al. Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 17: 557-588
• 5 Lim JH. Cholangiocarcinoma: morphologic classification according to growth pattern and imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 819-827
• 6 Rizvi S, Khan SA, Hallemeier CL. et al. Cholangiocarcinoma – evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018; 15: 95-111
• 7 Mantripragada S, Chawla A. Cholangiocarcinoma: Part 1, Pathological and Morphological Subtypes, Spectrum of Imaging Appearances, Prognostic Factors and Staging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2022; 51: 351-361
• 8 Olthof SC, Othman A, Clasen S. et al. Imaging of Cholangiocarcinoma. Visc Med 2016; 32: 402-410
• 9 Angulo P, Pearce DH, Johnson CD. et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with biliary disease: its role in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol 2000; 33: 520-527
• 10 Hamaoka M, Kozaka K, Matsui O. et al. Early detection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Jpn J Radiol 2019; 37: 669-684
• 11 Blechacz B, Komuta M, Roskams T. et al. Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 8: 512-522
• 12 Kim SA, Lee JM, Lee KB. et al. Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinomas: enhancement patterns at multiphasic CT, with special emphasis on arterial enhancement pattern – correlation with clinicopathologic findings. Radiology 2011; 260: 148-157
• 13 Ruys AT, van Beem BE, Engelbrecht MR. et al. Radiological staging in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 1255-1262
• 14 Fábrega-Foster K, Ghasabeh MA, Pawlik TM. et al. Multimodality imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2017; 6: 67-78
• 15 Saleh M, Virarkar M, Bura V. et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: pathogenesis, current staging, and radiological findings. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45: 3662-3680
• 16 Sabaté-Llobera A, Gràcia-Sánchez L, Reynés-Llompart G. et al. Differences on metabolic behavior between intra and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas at (18)F-FDG-PET/CT: prognostic implication of metabolic parameters and tumor markers. Clin Transl Oncol 2019; 21: 324-333
• 17 Annunziata S, Caldarella C, Pizzuto DA. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of the primary tumor in patients with cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 247693
• 18 Park TG, Yu YD, Park BJ. et al. Implication of lymph node metastasis detected on 18F-FDG PET/CT for surgical planning in patients with peripheral intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Nucl Med 2014; 39: 1-7
• 19 Anderson CD, Rice MH, Pinson W. et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging in the evaluation of gallbladder carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2004; 8: 90-97
• 20 Macias RIR, Muñoz-Bellvís L, Sánchez-Martín A. et al. A Novel Serum Metabolomic Profile for the Differential Diagnosis of Distal Cholangiocarcinoma and Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12
• 21 Bohl CE, Federico SM, Robinson GW. et al. FDG-PET CT in the evaluation of primary and secondary pancreatic malignancies. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65: e27115
• 22 Watanabe N, Hayashi S, Kato H. et al. FDG-PET imaging in duodenal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2004; 18: 351-353