RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the primary staging of gastric cancer in the comparison of ceCT as routine staging method and evaluate influencing parameters of 18F-FDG uptake. METHODS: Thirty-one patients (mean age: 58.9±12.6) who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary staging of gastric cancer between June 2011 and June 2012 were included to the study. 18F-FDG PET/CT findings were compared with pathological reports in patients who underwent surgery following PET/CT. 18F-FDG PET/CT findings of primary lesions, lymph nodes and adjacent organs were compared with ceCT findings and pathological reports. Since 6 patients were accepted as inoperable according to 18F-FDG PET/CT and/or ceCT and/or laparotomy and/or laparoscopy findings, pathological confirmation could not be possible. RESULTS: In the postoperative TNM staging of patients, while 1 (4%), 1 (4%), 4 (16%), 2 (8%), 12 (48%) and 5 (20%) patients were staged as T0, Tis, T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively, 8 (32%), 6 (24%), 6 (24%) and 5 (20%) patients were N0, N1, N2 and N3 respectively. 18F-FDG PET/CT was totally normal in 2 patients. While primary tumors were FDG avid in 27 patients, in 17 and 6 patients FDG uptake was observed in perigastric lymph nodes and distant organs, respectively. Mean SUVmax of FDG avid tumors was calculated as 13.49±9.29 (3.00-44.60). However, SUVmax of lymph nodes was computed as 9.28±6.92 (2.80-29.10). According to sub-analysis of histopathological subtypes of primary tumors, SUVmax of adenocarsinomas was calculated as 15.16 (3.00-44.60), of signet ring cells as 9.90 (5.50-17.70), of adenocarcinomas with signet ring cell component as 11.27 (6.20-13.90) (p=0.721). In the comparison with histopathological examination while ceCT was TP, TN, FN in 23, 1 and 1 patients, 18F-FDG PET/CT was TP, FP, FN in 20, 1 and 4 patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPD and NPV of ceCT in the detection of lymph node metastasis was calculated as 83.3%, 75%, 80%, 87.5% and 66.6%, respectively. These parameters for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 64.7%, 100%, 76%, 100% and 57.1%. CONCLUSION: Despite lower sensitivity than ceCT, diagnostic power of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer is acceptable. Because of its high PPV, it might be beneficial in the evaluation of patients with suspected lymph nodes. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT seems to be limited in the early stage and signet ring cell carcinomas due to lower 18F-FDG uptake.
