Diagnostic performance of PET/CT in the detection of liver metastases in well-differentiated NETs
-
Published:2023-04-25
Issue:1
Volume:23
Page:
-
ISSN:1470-7330
-
Container-title:Cancer Imaging
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Cancer Imaging
Author:
Grawe Freba, Rosenberger Natalie, Ingenerf Maria, Beyer Leonie, Eschbach Ralf, Todica Andrei, Seidensticker Ricarda, Schmid-Tannwald Christine, Cyran Clemens C., Ricke Jens, Bartenstein Peter, Auernhammer Christoph. J., Ruebenthaler Johannes, Fabritius Matthias P.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of somatostatin receptor (SSR)-PET/CT to liver MRI as reference standard in the evaluation of hepatic involvement in neuroendocrine tumors (NET).
Methods
An institutional database was screened for “SSR” imaging studies between 2006 and 2021. 1000 NET Patients (grade 1/2) with 2383 SSR-PET/CT studies and matching liver MRI in an interval of +3 months were identified. Medical reports of SSR-PET/CT and MRI were retrospectively evaluated regarding hepatic involvement and either confirmed by both or observed in MRI but not in SSR-PET/CT (false-negative) or in SSR-PET but not in MRI (false-positive).
Results
Metastatic hepatic involvement was reported in 1650 (69.2%) of the total 2383 SSR-PET/CT imaging studies, whereas MRI detected hepatic involvement in 1685 (70.7%) cases. There were 51 (2.1%) false-negative and 16 (0.7%) false-positive cases. In case of discrepant reports, MRI and PET/CT were reviewed side by side for consensus reading. SSR-PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 97.0% (95%CI: 96.0%, 97.7%), a specificity of 97.7% (95%CI: 96.3%, 98.7%), a PPV of 99.0% (95%CI: 98.4%, 99.4%) and NPV of 93.0% (95%CI: 91.0, 94.8%) in identifying hepatic involvement. The most frequent reason for false-negative results was the small size of lesions with the majority < 0.6 cm.
Conclusion
This study confirms the high diagnostic accuracy of SSR-PET/CT in the detection of hepatic involvement in NET patients based on a patient-based analysis of metastatic hepatic involvement with a high sensitivity and specificity using liver MRI imaging as reference standard. However, one should be aware of possible pitfalls when a single imaging method is used in evaluating neuroendocrine liver metastases in patients.
Funder
Universitätsklinik München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Oncology,General Medicine,Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
Reference57 articles.
1. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, Zhao B, Zhou S, Xu Y, Shih T, Yao JC. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1335–42. 2. Kulke M, Benson A, Bergsland E, Berlin J, Blaszkowsky L, Choti M, Clark O, Doherty G, Eason J, Emerson L, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10:724–64. 3. Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A, Krenning E, Öberg K, Steinmüller T, Anlauf M, Wiedenmann B, Salazar R. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95(2):157–76. 4. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, Dagohoy C, Leary C, Mares JE, Abdalla EK, Fleming JB, Vauthey JN, Rashid A, et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin oncology: official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;26(18):3063–72. 5. Sundin A, Arnold R, Baudin E, Cwikla JB, Eriksson B, Fanti S, Fazio N, Giammarile F, Hicks RJ, Kjaer A, et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Tumors: Radiological, Nuclear Medicine & Hybrid Imaging. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105(3):212–44.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|