Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results
The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Eleven patients with 16 hepatic metastases (mean size 2.9 c...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2006-01, Vol.16 (1), p.80-87 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 87 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 80 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Veit, Patrick Antoch, Gerald Stergar, Hrvoje Bockisch, Andreas Forsting, Michael Kuehl, Hilmar |
| description | The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Eleven patients with 16 hepatic metastases (mean size 2.9 cm) from colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study, and 19 RFA procedures and 32 PET/CT examinations were performed. The patients had PET/CT before and after RFA using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose. CT images alone were read by two radiologists, PET images alone were evaluated by two nuclear physicians. Fused images were read by one physician of each speciality in consensus. The accuracy for detection of residual tumor by the different imaging modalities following RFA was assessed. Eleven patients with a mean age of 63 (range 55-71) years were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 393 days. The overall procedure-based sensitivity for detection of residual tumor was 65% for PET and PET/CT and 44% for CT alone. The accuracies were 68% and 47%, respectively. Four patients had residual tumor after RFA, six patients total developed local recurrence. PET/CT therefore possibly proved superior to CT alone when assessing the liver for residual tumor after RFA. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-005-2767-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67614132</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67614132</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-631344729083f2a31cf1845c20cd4f484667aa3dab4a761d408be321e3308a3a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkdFqFDEUhoNY2m3tA3gjAcG72JOc7CTjnay1CgW9WK_D2ZkMpsxMapKx3bc3y64IQuDcfP9_knyMvZbwXgKYmwyACAJgLZRpjIAXbCU1KiHB6pdsBS1aYdpWX7DLnB8AoJXanLMLubaNlUqt2PMnX3xXQpx5HHjyOfQLjbwsU0ychuITT9SHOCT_a_Fzt-e0G-kvP4bfFZh8oVxPyPwplJ_80CCm2NMYyp5_v93ebLYfeJhDCbW67ljGkl-xs4HG7K9P84r9-Hy73XwR99_uvm4-3osOlSmiQYlaG9WCxUERym6QVq87BV2vB2110xgi7GmnyTSy12B3HpX09WMsIeEVe3fsfUyxviAXN4Xc-XGk2cclu6amtERVwbf_gQ9xSXO9m0OpTGXsGislj1SXYs7JD-4xhYnS3klwBynuKMVVKe4gxUHNvDk1L7vJ9_8SJwv4ByUDh8A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3127413853</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Veit, Patrick ; Antoch, Gerald ; Stergar, Hrvoje ; Bockisch, Andreas ; Forsting, Michael ; Kuehl, Hilmar</creator><creatorcontrib>Veit, Patrick ; Antoch, Gerald ; Stergar, Hrvoje ; Bockisch, Andreas ; Forsting, Michael ; Kuehl, Hilmar</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Eleven patients with 16 hepatic metastases (mean size 2.9 cm) from colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study, and 19 RFA procedures and 32 PET/CT examinations were performed. The patients had PET/CT before and after RFA using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose. CT images alone were read by two radiologists, PET images alone were evaluated by two nuclear physicians. Fused images were read by one physician of each speciality in consensus. The accuracy for detection of residual tumor by the different imaging modalities following RFA was assessed. Eleven patients with a mean age of 63 (range 55-71) years were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 393 days. The overall procedure-based sensitivity for detection of residual tumor was 65% for PET and PET/CT and 44% for CT alone. The accuracies were 68% and 47%, respectively. Four patients had residual tumor after RFA, six patients total developed local recurrence. PET/CT therefore possibly proved superior to CT alone when assessing the liver for residual tumor after RFA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2767-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15868122</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Ablation ; Aged ; Cancer ; Catheter Ablation - methods ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal carcinoma ; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Computed tomography ; Contrast Media - administration & dosage ; Evaluation ; Female ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 ; Follow-Up Studies ; Glucose ; Humans ; Iohexol - analogs & derivatives ; Liver ; Liver - diagnostic imaging ; Liver cancer ; Liver Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Liver Neoplasms - secondary ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis ; Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis ; Observer Variation ; Patients ; Physicians ; Positron emission ; Positron emission tomography ; Positron-Emission Tomography - methods ; Radio frequency ; Radiofrequency ablation ; Radiopharmaceuticals ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2006-01, Vol.16 (1), p.80-87</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2005.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-631344729083f2a31cf1845c20cd4f484667aa3dab4a761d408be321e3308a3a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-631344729083f2a31cf1845c20cd4f484667aa3dab4a761d408be321e3308a3a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15868122$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Veit, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antoch, Gerald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stergar, Hrvoje</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bockisch, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forsting, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuehl, Hilmar</creatorcontrib><title>Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Eleven patients with 16 hepatic metastases (mean size 2.9 cm) from colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study, and 19 RFA procedures and 32 PET/CT examinations were performed. The patients had PET/CT before and after RFA using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose. CT images alone were read by two radiologists, PET images alone were evaluated by two nuclear physicians. Fused images were read by one physician of each speciality in consensus. The accuracy for detection of residual tumor by the different imaging modalities following RFA was assessed. Eleven patients with a mean age of 63 (range 55-71) years were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 393 days. The overall procedure-based sensitivity for detection of residual tumor was 65% for PET and PET/CT and 44% for CT alone. The accuracies were 68% and 47%, respectively. Four patients had residual tumor after RFA, six patients total developed local recurrence. PET/CT therefore possibly proved superior to CT alone when assessing the liver for residual tumor after RFA.</description><subject>Ablation</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Catheter Ablation - methods</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal carcinoma</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Contrast Media - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Glucose</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Iohexol - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Liver - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Liver cancer</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Positron emission</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Radio frequency</subject><subject>Radiofrequency ablation</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkdFqFDEUhoNY2m3tA3gjAcG72JOc7CTjnay1CgW9WK_D2ZkMpsxMapKx3bc3y64IQuDcfP9_knyMvZbwXgKYmwyACAJgLZRpjIAXbCU1KiHB6pdsBS1aYdpWX7DLnB8AoJXanLMLubaNlUqt2PMnX3xXQpx5HHjyOfQLjbwsU0ychuITT9SHOCT_a_Fzt-e0G-kvP4bfFZh8oVxPyPwplJ_80CCm2NMYyp5_v93ebLYfeJhDCbW67ljGkl-xs4HG7K9P84r9-Hy73XwR99_uvm4-3osOlSmiQYlaG9WCxUERym6QVq87BV2vB2110xgi7GmnyTSy12B3HpX09WMsIeEVe3fsfUyxviAXN4Xc-XGk2cclu6amtERVwbf_gQ9xSXO9m0OpTGXsGislj1SXYs7JD-4xhYnS3klwBynuKMVVKe4gxUHNvDk1L7vJ9_8SJwv4ByUDh8A</recordid><startdate>200601</startdate><enddate>200601</enddate><creator>Veit, Patrick</creator><creator>Antoch, Gerald</creator><creator>Stergar, Hrvoje</creator><creator>Bockisch, Andreas</creator><creator>Forsting, Michael</creator><creator>Kuehl, Hilmar</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200601</creationdate><title>Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results</title><author>Veit, Patrick ; Antoch, Gerald ; Stergar, Hrvoje ; Bockisch, Andreas ; Forsting, Michael ; Kuehl, Hilmar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-631344729083f2a31cf1845c20cd4f484667aa3dab4a761d408be321e3308a3a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Ablation</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Catheter Ablation - methods</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal carcinoma</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Contrast Media - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Glucose</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Iohexol - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Liver - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Liver cancer</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Positron emission</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Radio frequency</topic><topic>Radiofrequency ablation</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Veit, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antoch, Gerald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stergar, Hrvoje</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bockisch, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forsting, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuehl, Hilmar</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Veit, Patrick</au><au>Antoch, Gerald</au><au>Stergar, Hrvoje</au><au>Bockisch, Andreas</au><au>Forsting, Michael</au><au>Kuehl, Hilmar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2006-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>80</spage><epage>87</epage><pages>80-87</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Eleven patients with 16 hepatic metastases (mean size 2.9 cm) from colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study, and 19 RFA procedures and 32 PET/CT examinations were performed. The patients had PET/CT before and after RFA using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose. CT images alone were read by two radiologists, PET images alone were evaluated by two nuclear physicians. Fused images were read by one physician of each speciality in consensus. The accuracy for detection of residual tumor by the different imaging modalities following RFA was assessed. Eleven patients with a mean age of 63 (range 55-71) years were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 393 days. The overall procedure-based sensitivity for detection of residual tumor was 65% for PET and PET/CT and 44% for CT alone. The accuracies were 68% and 47%, respectively. Four patients had residual tumor after RFA, six patients total developed local recurrence. PET/CT therefore possibly proved superior to CT alone when assessing the liver for residual tumor after RFA.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>15868122</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-005-2767-0</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2006-01, Vol.16 (1), p.80-87 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67614132 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Ablation Aged Cancer Catheter Ablation - methods Colorectal cancer Colorectal carcinoma Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology Computed tomography Contrast Media - administration & dosage Evaluation Female Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 Follow-Up Studies Glucose Humans Iohexol - analogs & derivatives Liver Liver - diagnostic imaging Liver cancer Liver Neoplasms - radiotherapy Liver Neoplasms - secondary Male Medical imaging Metastases Metastasis Middle Aged Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis Observer Variation Patients Physicians Positron emission Positron emission tomography Positron-Emission Tomography - methods Radio frequency Radiofrequency ablation Radiopharmaceuticals Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Tumors |
| title | Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T07%3A49%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Detection%20of%20residual%20tumor%20after%20radiofrequency%20ablation%20of%20liver%20metastasis%20with%20dual-modality%20PET/CT:%20initial%20results&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Veit,%20Patrick&rft.date=2006-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=80&rft.epage=87&rft.pages=80-87&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-005-2767-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67614132%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3127413853&rft_id=info:pmid/15868122&rfr_iscdi=true |