We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Improved detection of individual nodal involvement in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus by FDG PET.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2000 May
UNLABELLED: Because both the number and location of metastatic lymph nodes and the N stage influence survival in esophageal cancer, accurate noninvasive evaluation of individual lymph node groups for the presence of metastasis is essential for therapeutic planning. Therefore, we investigated the accuracy of FDG PET for evaluating individual lymph groups in esophageal cancer patients and compared the results with those of CT and endoscopic sonography (ES).
METHODS: Sixty-one consecutive patients with histologically proven primary esophageal carcinoma were studied prospectively with FDG PET. Thirteen patients who were treated nonsurgically were excluded from data analysis. The remaining 48 patients underwent esophagectomy and lymph node dissection. All 48 patients underwent CT scanning, including the lower neck, thorax, and upper abdomen, with intravenous administration of contrast medium. ES was performed in 45 of the patients but was incomplete in 12 patients because of esophageal stenosis. The accuracies of FDG PET, CT, and ES were compared with histologic findings.
RESULTS: During surgery, a total of 382 lymph node groups were dissected in 48 patients, of which 100 node groups in 32 patients were malignant on histologic examination. For assessing metastasis to individual groups, FDG PET showed 57% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and 86% accuracy, whereas CT showed 18% sensitivity (P < 0.0001), 99% specificity (P = 0.033), and 78% accuracy (P = 0.003). For N staging, FDG PET was correct in 83% (40/48) of the patients, whereas CT and ES were correct in 60% (29/48; P = 0.006) and 58% (26/45; P = 0.003), respectively.
CONCLUSION: FDG PET is more accurate than is CT or ES for evaluating metastasis to individual lymph node groups and for N staging in esophageal cancer and thus may be helpful in determining the therapeutic plan.
METHODS: Sixty-one consecutive patients with histologically proven primary esophageal carcinoma were studied prospectively with FDG PET. Thirteen patients who were treated nonsurgically were excluded from data analysis. The remaining 48 patients underwent esophagectomy and lymph node dissection. All 48 patients underwent CT scanning, including the lower neck, thorax, and upper abdomen, with intravenous administration of contrast medium. ES was performed in 45 of the patients but was incomplete in 12 patients because of esophageal stenosis. The accuracies of FDG PET, CT, and ES were compared with histologic findings.
RESULTS: During surgery, a total of 382 lymph node groups were dissected in 48 patients, of which 100 node groups in 32 patients were malignant on histologic examination. For assessing metastasis to individual groups, FDG PET showed 57% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and 86% accuracy, whereas CT showed 18% sensitivity (P < 0.0001), 99% specificity (P = 0.033), and 78% accuracy (P = 0.003). For N staging, FDG PET was correct in 83% (40/48) of the patients, whereas CT and ES were correct in 60% (29/48; P = 0.006) and 58% (26/45; P = 0.003), respectively.
CONCLUSION: FDG PET is more accurate than is CT or ES for evaluating metastasis to individual lymph node groups and for N staging in esophageal cancer and thus may be helpful in determining the therapeutic plan.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Insomnia in older adults: A review of treatment options.Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2025 January 2
How We Treat ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: A Focus on the Maintenance Therapy.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025 January 2
Allergic rhinitis.Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology 2024 December 27
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: 2025 Update on the Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Therapy.American Journal of Hematology 2025 January 28
Sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock: controversies and evidence gaps in diagnosis and management.Journal of Intensive Care 2025 January 2
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app