학술논문
대장직장암의 육안적 소견에 따른 양전자방출단층촬영 섭취율
Relationship between Positron Emission Tomography Uptake and Macroscopic Findings of Colorectal Cancer
Relationship between Positron Emission Tomography Uptake and Macroscopic Findings of Colorectal Cancer
Document Type
Article
Author
김소영 / So Young Kim; 이선영 / Sun Young Lee; 임화경 / Hwa Kyung Lim; 이지영 / Ji Young Lee; 홍성노 / Sung Noh Hong; 김정환 / Jeong Hwan Kim; 성인경 / In Kyung Sung; 박형석 / Hyung Seok Park; 심찬섭 / Chan Sup Shim; 진춘조 / Choon Jo Jin; 정현우 ( Hyun Woo
Source
Intestinal research (Intest Res). Apr 30, 2012 10(2):168
Subject
Language
Korean
English
English
ISSN
1598-9100
Abstract
목적: 18Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) 양전자방출단층촬영(PET)은 반정량적 수치인 표준화섭취계수(SUV)를 통해 대장암 진단에 있어서 중요한 정보를 제공한다. 이 연구에서는 대장직장암의 육안적 소견과 표준화섭취계수 최대값(SUVmax)간의 연관성을 알아보고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법: 대장직장암을 진단받은 후 PET를 시행한 347명을 조사하였다. 대장직장암의 SUVmax은 PET를 통해서 측정하였으며, 대장직장암의 육안적 소견은 크게 궤양융기형, 궤양침윤형, 비궤양성 융기형의 세가지로 구분하였다. 결과: SUVmax를 조사한 결과, 궤양융기형(12.19±5.84)과 궤양침윤형(11.66±5.63) 대장직장암에서 비궤양성 융기형 대장직장암(9.58±6.67)보다 유의하게 높았다(P=0.005) (궤양융기형과 궤양침윤형 vs. 비궤양성 융기형, P=0.001). 비궤양성 융기형 대장직장암은 궤양융기형 및 궤양침윤형 대장직장암에 비해서 크기가 작았다(P＜0.001). 결론: 비궤양성 융기형 대장직장암은 궤양융기형이나 궤양침윤형 대장직장암에 비해서 크기가 작으며, SUVmax가 낮게 측정되므로 PET 검사 시 주의를 요한다.
Background/Aims: The semiquantitative parameter “standard uptake value” (SUV) of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET) provides important additional information about colorectal cancer. In general, colorectal cancers exhibit different growth patterns with different clinicopathological characteristics. The aim of this study was to elucidate the link between the macroscopic appearance of colorectal cancers and maximum SUV (SUVmax) FDG uptakes. Methods: We analyzed 347 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent PET scanning before treatment. The SUVmax of colorectal cancer was analyzed by examining PET images. The macroscopic appearance of each colorectal cancer was classified into three major types: ulcerofungating (n=223), ulceroinfiltrating (n=44), and fungating (n=78). Two cases that were difficult to classify were excluded from the study. Results: The SUVmax was higher in colorectal cancers with an ulcerofungating appearance (12.19±5.84, mean±standard deviation) and ulceroinfiltrating appearance (11.66±5.63) than in those with a fungating appearance (9.58±6.67; P=0.005) (ulcerofungating and ulceroinfiltrative vs. fungating, P＜0.001). A smaller tumor size (P＜0.001) were significantly related to the fungating colorectal cancer. Four out of six colorectal cancers that did not show FDG uptake were the fungating type. Conclusions: Colorectal cancers with a fungating appearance exhibit a lower SUVmax, shallower invasion and smaller tumor size. Our results indicate that colorectal cancers with a fungating appearance would be less prominent on PET scan than those with an ulcerofungating or ulceroinfiltrating appearance, and thus require more attention. (Intest Res 2012;10:168-175)
Background/Aims: The semiquantitative parameter “standard uptake value” (SUV) of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET) provides important additional information about colorectal cancer. In general, colorectal cancers exhibit different growth patterns with different clinicopathological characteristics. The aim of this study was to elucidate the link between the macroscopic appearance of colorectal cancers and maximum SUV (SUVmax) FDG uptakes. Methods: We analyzed 347 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent PET scanning before treatment. The SUVmax of colorectal cancer was analyzed by examining PET images. The macroscopic appearance of each colorectal cancer was classified into three major types: ulcerofungating (n=223), ulceroinfiltrating (n=44), and fungating (n=78). Two cases that were difficult to classify were excluded from the study. Results: The SUVmax was higher in colorectal cancers with an ulcerofungating appearance (12.19±5.84, mean±standard deviation) and ulceroinfiltrating appearance (11.66±5.63) than in those with a fungating appearance (9.58±6.67; P=0.005) (ulcerofungating and ulceroinfiltrative vs. fungating, P＜0.001). A smaller tumor size (P＜0.001) were significantly related to the fungating colorectal cancer. Four out of six colorectal cancers that did not show FDG uptake were the fungating type. Conclusions: Colorectal cancers with a fungating appearance exhibit a lower SUVmax, shallower invasion and smaller tumor size. Our results indicate that colorectal cancers with a fungating appearance would be less prominent on PET scan than those with an ulcerofungating or ulceroinfiltrating appearance, and thus require more attention. (Intest Res 2012;10:168-175)