Clinical PET pp 296-313 | Cite as

Esophageal, Gastric, Pancreatic, and Colorectal Cancers

  • Tomio Inoue
  • Nobukazu Takahashi
  • E. Edmund Kim


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).


Gastric Cancer Colorectal Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Esophageal Cancer Primary Lesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kuwano H, Sumiyoshi K, Sonoda K, et al. Relationship between preoperative assessment of organ function and postoperative morbidity in patients with esophageal cancer. Eur J Surg 1998; 164: 581–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kato H, Kuwano H, Nakajima M, et al. Comparison between positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the use of the assessment of esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2002; 94: 921–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDGPET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics 1999; 19: 61–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 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
  10. 10.
    Higashi T, Tamaki N, Honda T, et al. Expression of glucose transporters in human pancreatic tumors compared with increased FDG accumulation in PET study. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1337–1344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reske SN, Grillenberger KG, Glatting G, et al. Overexpression of glucose transporter 1 and increased FDG uptake in pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1344–1348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inokuma T, Tamaki N, Torizuka T, et al. Evaluation of pancreatic tumors with positron emission tomography and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: comparison with CT and US. Radiology 1995; 195: 345–352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delbeke D, Rose DM, Chapman WC, et al. Optimal interpretation of FDGPET in the diagnosis, staging and management of pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 1784–1791.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zimny M, Bares R, Fass J, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma: a report of 106 cases. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24: 678–682.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    August TA, Ottow RT, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical perspectives on human colorectal cancer metastases. Cancer Metastasis 1984; 3: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turk PS, Wanebo HJ. Results of surgical treatment of nonhepatic recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1993; 72: 4267–4277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Yasuda S, Fuji H, Nakahara T, et al. F-18 FDG-PET detection of colonic adenoma. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 989–992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG-PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1177–1189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ito K, Kato T, Tadokoro M, et al. Recurrent rectal cancer and scar: differentiation with PET and MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 182: 549–552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flangen FL, Dehdashi F, Ogunbiyi OA, et al. Utility of FDG-PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 227: 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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
  25. 25.
    Kalff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE, et al. The clinical impact of F-18 FDG-PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of colorectal cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 492–499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomio Inoue
  • Nobukazu Takahashi
  • E. Edmund Kim

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations