Esophageal, Gastric, Pancreatic, and Colorectal Cancers
- 252 Downloads
The recent progress in diagnostic and therapeutic methods has changed the clinical management of patients with esophageal cancer. In the field of diagnosis of esophageal cancer, the endoscopic technique using dye or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has increased the diagnostic sensitivity for early esophageal cancer. The prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer has been improved by introducing the lymph node resection of three regions or the superior mediastinum. However, surgery in patients with esophageal cancer is an invasive procedure, and the postsurgical complications are still severe. It requires a cautious treatment decision in patients with esophageal cancer even if the perioperative management has been advanced.1 Anatomic imaging such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography (US), is the standard examination for investigating tumor extent, tumor invasion to the adjacent organs, and distant metastases. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and tumor metabolic imaging can provide supplemental information in conjunction with anatomic imaging (Fig. 18.1).
KeywordsGastric Cancer Colorectal Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Esophageal Cancer Primary Lesion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Kobori O, Kirihara Y, Kosaka N, et al. Positron emission tomography of esophageal carcinoma using C-11 choline and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: a novel method of preoperative lymph node staging. Cancer 1999: 86: 1683 1658.Google Scholar
- 4.Lowe VJ, Mullan BP, Wiersema M, et al. Prospective comparison of PET, CT and EUS in the initial staging of esophageal cancer patients: preliminary results. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 66.Google Scholar
- 5.Wieder H, Zimmermann K, Becker K, et al. Time course of tumor glucose utilization in patients with squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 66.Google Scholar
- 7.Cook GJR, Fogelman I, Maisey M. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996; 24: 308–314.Google Scholar
- 8.Yoshioka K, Yamaguchi K, Kubota K, et al. FDG-PET in gastric cancer with metastases or recurrence. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 67.Google Scholar
- 9.Stahl A, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer by FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 67.Google Scholar
- 15.Higashi T, Nakamoto Y, Saga T, et al. Clinical contribution of FDG-PET in evaluating small pancreatic tumors 20 mm in diameter or smaller. Gut 2000; United European Gastroenterology Week abstr.Google Scholar
- 18.Nabi AH, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM, et al. Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology 2998: 206: 755–760.Google Scholar
- 23.Abouzied MM, Zubeldia JM, Nabi HA. Role of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of occult recurrent carcinoma presenting with rising tumor markers. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 23.Google Scholar
- 24.Delbeke D,Vitola JV, Sandler MP, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1196–1201.Google Scholar
- 26.Cohade D, Osman M, Leal J, et al. Direct comparison of FDG-PET and PET-CT imaging in colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 22.Google Scholar