scholarly journals Limitations in the use of 18F-FDG PET in the pre-operative staging of gastric cancer: A case series

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 147-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Fonocho ◽  
Nail Aydin ◽  
Srini Reddy ◽  
Subhasis Misra
2015 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Kaneko ◽  
W. K. Murray ◽  
E. Link ◽  
R. J. Hicks ◽  
C. Duong

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Filik ◽  
Kemal Metin Kir ◽  
Bülent Aksel ◽  
Çiğdem Soydal ◽  
Elgin Özkan ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1956-1959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Albano ◽  
Raffaele Giubbini ◽  
Francesco Bertagna
Keyword(s):  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 76-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Cayvarlı ◽  
Recep Bekiş ◽  
Tülay Akman ◽  
Deniz Altun

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Soo Park ◽  
Nare Lee ◽  
Seung Hoon Beom ◽  
Hyo Song Kim ◽  
Choong-kun Lee ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. A-463
Author(s):  
Ji Eun Lee ◽  
Sung-Pyo Hong ◽  
Tae Joo Jeon ◽  
Dae Ho Ahn ◽  
Chang-Il Kwon ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (5) ◽  
pp. 989-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuke Kawanaka ◽  
Kazuhiro Kitajima ◽  
Kazuhito Fukushima ◽  
Miya Mouri ◽  
Hiroshi Doi ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11-11
Author(s):  
Sung Min Jung ◽  
Dae Young Cheung ◽  
Jin Il Kim ◽  
Jae J. Kim ◽  
Sang Woo Lee ◽  
...  

11 Background: Stomach CT and endoscopic ultrasonography are used for evaluating pre-operative staging of gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pre-operative CT and endoscopic ultrasonographic staging to post-operative pathologic staging. Methods: We reviewed medical records of 567 patients with gastric cancer from 2012 to 2015, and compared their pre-operative CT staging to post-operative pathologic staging. Among the 567 patients, 149 patients underwent pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging, so we compared their pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging to post-operative pathologic staging. We also investigated lymph node metastasis in 146 patients with gastric cancer invading submucosa, planning to undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection. Results: The numbers of patients diagnosed as T1, T2, T3, T41, and T4b by pre-operative CT staging were 327, 97, 93, 46, and 4, respectively. However, the numbers of patients diagnosed as T1, T2, T3, T41, and T4b by post-operative pathologic staging were 208, 153, 53, 83, 62, and 8, resulting the pre-operative CT staging to be under-estimated. Similarly, pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging was also under-estimated, as although 48, 67, 32, and 2 patients were diagnosed as T1a, T1b, T2, and T3, respectively, by the pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonographic staging, post-operative pathologic staging revealed 72, 55, 13, 7, and 2 patients. In patients with gastric cancer invading submucosa (sm), there were 56 patients with sm1 invasion, 32 patients with sm2 invasion, and 91 patients with sm3 invasion. Lymph node metastasis was observed in 7 patients with sm1 invasion, 3 patients with sm2 invasion, and 22 patients with sm3 invasion. Poorly cohesive gastric cancer was the most common pathologic diagnosis in patients with metastatic lymph node. Conclusions: Physicians should keep in mind that pre-operative stomach CT and endoscopic ultrasonographic staging can be under-estimated compared to post-operative pathologic staging. Also, patients with poorly cohesive adenocarcinoma had more lymph node metastasis than patients with differentiated adenocarcinoma.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document