HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): James D. Luketich Tracey L. Weigel Robert J. Keenan Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Luketich, J. D. Articles by Meltzer, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Luketich, J. D. Articles by Meltzer, C. C.

Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1133-1136
© 1999 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original Articles

Evaluation of distant metastases in esophageal cancer: 100 consecutive positron emission tomography scans

^a Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Address reprint requests to Dr Luketich, Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, C-800 PUH, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: luketichjd{at}msx.upmc.edu

Presented at the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, San Antonio, TX, Jan 25–27, 1999.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comments References

 
Background. Pilot studies suggest positron emission tomography (PET) scanning may be superior to conventional imaging in staging esophageal cancer, especially in the detection of radiographically occult distant metastases. This report summarizes our experience with PET in staging esophageal cancer.

Methods. One hundred consecutive PET scans in 91 patients with esophageal cancer referred for surgery were prospectively collected (1995 to 1998) and compared with computerized tomography (CT) and bone scan. PET images were acquired after injection of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and evaluated for abnormal uptake. Minimally invasive surgical staging (MIS) and/or clinical correlation were used to confirm or refute imaging results.

Results. MIS or clinical correlation confirmed 70 distant metastases in 39 cases. PET detected 51 metastases in 27 of 39 cases (69% sensitivity, 93.4% specificity, 84% accuracy) compared with CT, which detected 26 metastases in 18 of 39 cases (46.1% sensitivity, 73.8% specificity, 63% accuracy) (p < 0.01).

Conclusions. PET was more accurate than CT in detecting distant metastases, but was only 69% sensitive compared with minimally invasive staging.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comments References

 
The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus has been rising at an alarming rate in the U.S. since the mid-1970s [1–3]. Previously, the majority of cases of esophageal cancer were squamous cell neoplasms, but adenocarcinoma is now the most common histology. Definitive information regarding risk factors and etiologies for the rising incidence of adenocarcinoma is not yet available. The most consistent risk factor is chronic esophageal reflux disease, which may lead to Barrett’s esophagus, and in some cases adenocarcinoma.

Conventional approaches to staging esophageal cancer include computerized tomography (CT), bone scans, and endoscopic ultrasound. These modalities have been shown to be inaccurate in detecting small distant metastases and in evaluating locoregional lymph nodes compared with minimally invasive staging [4–6]. However, cost and morbidity are important limitations of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic staging of esophageal cancer. In addition, these procedures do not assess cervical lymph nodes, which may harbor micrometastases in up to 30% of patients with esophageal cancer even when the primary tumor is located in the distal esophagus [7].

Recently, our group [8] and others [9, 10] have reported preliminary data suggesting positron emission tomography (PET) may play a role in staging esophageal cancer. The objective of this study was to report our expanded findings on the use of PET scan in detecting distant metastases in esophageal cancer.

	Material and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comments References

 
The patients represented in this series were consecutively referred to the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute for consultation by the Section of Thoracic Surgery between July 1995 and August 1998. Patients with potentially resectable disease based on clinical evaluation, barium esophagram, and CT of the chest and abdomen underwent PET scanning. Other staging modalities used in this study group included endoscopic ultrasound in 75%, minimally invasive surgical staging in 67%, and bone scans in 66%. Patients excluded from the series included those who had biopsy-proven distant disease based on standard noninvasive scanning results and fine needle aspiration, and thus were not candidates for surgical resection.

Positron emission tomography methods
All patients underwent PET scanning at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-Presbyterian facility. Scans were performed on either the Siemens/CTI (Knoxville, TN) ECAT ART or HR⁺ tomograph or the newly installed PET/CT combination scanner. Patients were fasted at least 4 hours before scanning. The morning of the PET scan, patients were injected with 6 to 8 mCi of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). PET scan was performed approximately 45 minutes after injection to allow sufficient circulation and uptake of tracer. A total of six to eight bed positions were used during scanning, each for approximately 6 minutes, yielding a total scan time of 36 to 48 minutes. The bed positions were overlapped by 4 cm, and whole body, three-dimensional images were reconstructed using the reprojection algorithm of Kinahan and Rogers [11]. The images were smoothed with a Hanning window, cut off at 80% of Nyquist frequency. There was no correction for attenuation or scatter. The PET images were displayed on a monitor in coronal, transverse, and sagittal views. Nuclear medicine-trained physicians analyzed the scans, concentrating on areas of focally increased FDG uptake. CT scans were used as a comparison for anatomic location and correlation.

Statistical analysis
The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET and CT for identifying distant disease were calculated by comparing the results of each scan with the results of biopsy, minimally invasive surgical staging, surgical resection, or clinical evaluation. Distant metastatic disease included lymph nodes if greater than 10 cm from the primary sit of tumor. A chi-square analysis was performed to assess the significance of the PET results versus the CT results (significance was set at p = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to analyze whether the initial PET results were sufficient to stratify survival. A log-rank test was used to assess the significance of this stratification (significance was set at p = 0.01).

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comments References

 
A total of 91 patients were included in the series; nine patients had two PET scans performed at different times, yielding a total of 100 PET scans for study inclusion. Of the 91 patients, 16 were women and 75 were men. The average patient age was 65.5 years (range 39 to 89 years). Of the 100 scans performed, 87 were performed before any surgical treatment. The remaining 13 scans were performed after surgical resection.

Minimally invasive staging or clinical correlation confirmed a total of 70 distant metastases in 39 scans. PET accurately detected 51 of these metastases in 27/39 scans. PET was 69% sensitive for detecting the presence of metastases. Radiographically occult metastatic sites of disease identified by PET scan were liver, 23; lung, 7; bone, 3; adrenal, 1; chest wall, 1; distant lymph nodes (16): mediastinal, 8; axillary, 1; neck, 7. Radiographically occult metastatic sites of disease missed by PET scan and indentified by minimally invasive surgery were liver, 10; lung, 2; pleura, 4; peritoneal, 1; cervical lymph node, 1. Note that all metastatic sites missed by PET scan were less than 1 cm in diameter. Specificity was 93.4%, yielding an overall accuracy of 84%. An example of a false-negative PET scan is shown (Fig 1A). Figure 1B shows the 6-mm liver metastasis found at laparoscopy, which was missed by PET. In 16 cases, the PET scan information led to a decision not to perform esophagectomy. For example, Figure 2 shows a PET scan indicative of distant metastatic disease who had a negative CT scan. False CT, on the other hand, accurately detected 26 metastases in 18 of 39 scans. CT was only 46.1% sensitive for detecting metastases and 73.8% specific, for an overall accuracy of 63%. The difference between PET and CT was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Of the 12 scans where PET was falsely negative, CT was accurate in four (33.3%). Of the 21 scans where CT was falsely negative, PET was accurate in 13 (61.9%). Bone scan was originally included in the comparisons, but it only identified one single metastasis correctly, and was not used in the analysis.

View larger version (71K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1. (A) False-negative PET scan shows increased focal uptake of tracer only at the site of the primary tumor at the gastro-esophageal junction. (B) In the same patient, laparoscopic staging identified a 6-mm liver metastasis that was not identified by either PET or CT.

View larger version (170K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2. PET scan showing increased focal uptake at the pleura and paratracheal lymph nodes not identified by CT.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 3. Survival based on initial PET scan identification of distant versus local disease only.

	Comments

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comments References

PET uses radioactive tracers to detect changes in metabolism between normal tissue and malignant tissue. In most studies to date, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose has been used to identify sites of increased glucose uptake [12, 13]. Using this approach, PET applications in lung cancer have been reported to detect radiographically occult metastatic disease in up to 15% of patients initially thought to be surgically resectable. Sensitivity for detecting mediastinal lymph node involvement has been 80% to 90%, specificity 85% to 99%, and accuracy as high as 90% [14, 15]. Initial pilot studies by our group and others have shown PET scanning for evaluating lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer has been less accurate, as low as 48% [8]. PET scanning for distant metastatic disease in esophageal cancer has been less frequently reported, but pilot studies suggest that between 10% and 20% of patients may have radiographically occult distant metastatic disease [8–10]. This study confirms previous reports and demonstrated that PET scanning revealed unsuspected metastatic disease in 16% of our patient population. This information was clinically significant and led to nonsurgical treatment approaches for patients with distant metastases.

Sensitivity of PET for detection of distant metastatic disease in this study was 69%, compared with thoracoscopic and laparoscopic staging. The most frequently missed distant metastatic sites by PET included liver and lung, and were usually less than 1 cm in diameter (Table 2). Advances in PET scanning technology could improve the sensitivity of PET for detecting smaller foci of metastatic disease. New tracers, such as C-11 Choline, show promise in the evaluation of locoregional lymph node evaluation [16, 17]. Combination PET/CT scanners will likely improve anatomic localization of uptake in a more precise manner and could lower the costs of separate CT and PET scanning. We are currently evaluating a combination PET/CT scanner developed in our center (by D.W.T.) that performs both scans simultaneously and can superimpose the images. This type of technology provides a more accurate anatomic localization of focal tracer uptake (Fig 4).

View larger version (139K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 4. Example of PET/CT scan in a patient with esophageal cancer primary and local nodal involvement.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comments References

 

1. Daly J.M., Karnell L.H., Menck H.R. National cancer data base report on esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 1996;78:1820-1827.[Medline]
2. Blot W.J., Devesa S.S., Kneller R.W., Fraumeni J.F., Jr Rising incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia. JAMA 1991;265:1287-1289.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Kim R., Weissfeld J.L., Reynolds J.C., Kuller L.H. Etiology of Barrett’s metaplasia and esophageal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention 1997;6:369-377.[Abstract]
4. Luketich J.D., Meehan M., Schauer P.R., et al. Minimally invasive surgical staging for esophageal cancer. Surg Endo 1999;13:531 (Abstr 59).
5. Krasna M.J., Flowers J.L., Attar S., McLaughlin J. Combined thoracoscopic/laparoscopic staging of esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovas Surg 1996;111:800-806.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Luketich J.D., Schauer P.R., Landreneau R., et al. Minimally invasive surgical staging is superior to endoscopic ultrasound in detecting lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;114:817-821.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Steup W.H., De Leyn P., Deneffe G., et al. Tumors of the esophagogastric junction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;111:85-95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Luketich J.D., Schauer P.R., Meltzer C.C., et al. Role of positron emission tomography in staging esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;64:765-769.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Kole A.C., Plukker J.T., Niewag O.E., Vaalburg W. Positron emission tomography for staging of esophageal and gastroesophageal malignancy. Br J Cancer 1998;78:521-527.[Medline]
10. Block M.I., Patterson G.A., Sundaresan R.S., et al. Improvement in staging of esophageal cancer with the addition of positron emission tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;64:770-777.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Rogers J.G., Harrop R., Kinahan P.E., et al. Conceptual design of a whole body PET machine. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1989;35:964-968.
12. Rigo P., Baulus P., Kaschten B.J., et al. Oncological applications of positron emission tomography with flourine-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:1641-1674.[Medline]
13. Conti P.S., Lilien D.L., Hawley K., Keppler J., Grafton S.T., Bading J.R. PET and [18f]-FDG in oncology. Nucl Med Biol 1996;23:717-735.[Medline]
14. Patz E.F., Lowe V.J., Goodman P.C., Herndon J. Thoracic nodal staging with PET imaging with 18-FDG in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest 1995;108:1617-1621.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Weigel TL, Meltzer CC, Friedman D, Keenan RJ, Ferson PF, Luketich JD. The role of positron emission tomography in evaluating the mediastinum in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. In: Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Thoracic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA 1999 [Abstract]. 1999; 82.
16. Hara T., Kosaka N., Shinoura N., Kondo T. PET imaging of brain tumor with [methyl-¹¹C]choline. J Nucl Med 1997;38:842-847.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Hara T., Kosaka N., Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med 1998;39:990-995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. J. Kim, H. Y. Kim, K. W. Lee, and M. S. Kim Multimodality Assessment of Esophageal Cancer: Preoperative Staging and Monitoring of Response to Therapy1 RadioGraphics, March 1, 2009; 29(2): 403 - 421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. G. Berrisford, W.-L. Wong, D. Day, E. Toy, M. Napier, K. Mitchell, and S. Wajed The decision to operate: role of integrated computed tomography positron emission tomography in staging oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction cancer by the multidisciplinary team Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2008; 33(6): 1112 - 1116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Pennathur and J. D. Luketich Resection for Esophageal Cancer: Strategies for Optimal Management Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2008; 85(2): S751 - S756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F. Bruzzi, R. F. Munden, M. T. Truong, E. M. Marom, B. S. Sabloff, G. W. Gladish, R. B. Iyer, T.-S. Pan, H. A. Macapinlac, and J. J. Erasmus PET/CT of Esophageal Cancer: Its Role in Clinical Management RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1635 - 1652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Banki, R. J. Mason, D. Oh, J. A. Hagen, S. R. DeMeester, J. C. Lipham, K. Tanaka, K. D. Danenberg, W. N. Yacoub, P. V. Danenberg, et al. Plasma DNA as a Molecular Marker for Completeness of Resection and Recurrent Disease in Patients With Esophageal Cancer Arch Surg, June 1, 2007; 142(6): 533 - 539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Rizk, R. J. Downey, T. Akhurst, M. Gonen, M. S. Bains, S. Larson, and V. Rusch Preoperative 18[F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Standardized Uptake Values Predict Survival After Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Resection Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2006; 81(3): 1076 - 1081. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Gollub, R. Lefkowitz, C. S. Moskowitz, D. Ilson, D. Kelsen, and H. Felderman Pelvic CT in Patients with Esophageal Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 487 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Kneist, M. Schreckenberger, P. Bartenstein, C. Menzel, K. Oberholzer, and T. Junginger Prospective Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography in the Preoperative Staging of Esophageal Carcinoma Arch Surg, October 1, 2004; 139(10): 1043 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.L. van Westreenen, M. Westerterp, P.M.M. Bossuyt, J. Pruim, G.W. Sloof, J.J.B. van Lanschot, H. Groen, and J.Th.M. Plukker Systematic Review of the Staging Performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Esophageal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2004; 22(18): 3805 - 3812. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A.M. Heeren, P. L. Jager, F. Bongaerts, H. van Dullemen, W. Sluiter, and J. Th.M. Plukker Detection of Distant Metastases in Esophageal Cancer with 18F-FDG PET J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2004; 45(6): 980 - 987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Rohren, T. G. Turkington, and R. E. Coleman Clinical Applications of PET in Oncology Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 305 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Koshy, N. Esiashvilli, J. C. Landry, C. R. Thomas Jr., and R. H. Matthews Multiple Management Modalities in Esophageal Cancer: Epidemiology, Presentation and Progression, Work-up, and Surgical Approaches Oncologist, April 1, 2004; 9(2): 137 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. A. Wieder, B. L.D.M. Brucher, F. Zimmermann, K. Becker, F. Lordick, A. Beer, M. Schwaiger, U. Fink, J. R. Siewert, H. J. Stein, et al. Time Course of Tumor Metabolic Activity During Chemoradiotherapy of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Response to Treatment J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2004; 22(5): 900 - 908. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. S. Majhail, J.-L. Urbain, J. M. Albani, M. H. Kanvinde, T. W. Rice, A. C. Novick, T. M. Mekhail, T. E. Olencki, P. Elson, and R. M. Bukowski F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in the Evaluation of Distant Metastases From Renal Cell Carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2003; 21(21): 3995 - 4000. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Himeno, S. Yasuda, H. Shimada, T. Tajima, and H. Makuuchi Evaluation of Esophageal Cancer by Positron Emission Tomography Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2002; 32(9): 340 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Wren, P. Stijns, and S. Srinivas Positron Emission Tomography in the Initial Staging of Esophageal Cancer Arch Surg, September 1, 2002; 137(9): 1001 - 1006. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. D'Amico, T. Z. Wong, D. H. Harpole, S. D. Brown, and R. E. Coleman Impact of computed tomography-positron emission tomography fusion in staging patients with thoracic malignancies Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2002; 74(1): 160 - 163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Krasna, X. Jiao, J. R. Sonett, Z. Gamliel, A. Eslami, Y. Raefaly, and Y. Mao Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic lymph node staging in esophageal cancer: do clinicopathological factors affect the outcome? Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2002; 73(6): 1710 - 1713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Flamen, E. Van Cutsem, A. Lerut, J.-P. Cambier, K. Haustermans, G. Bormans, P. De Leyn, D. Van Raemdonck, W. De Wever, N. Ectors, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer Ann. Onc., March 1, 2002; 13(3): 361 - 368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W.C. Entwistle III and M. Goldberg Multimodality therapy for resectable cancer of the thoracic esophagus Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2002; 73(3): 1009 - 1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Gambhir, J. Czernin, J. Schwimmer, D. H. S. Silverman, R. E. Coleman, and M. E. Phelps A Tabulated Summary of the FDG PET Literature J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2001; 42(90050): 1S - 93. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kim, S. J. Park, B.-T. Kim, K. S. Lee, and Y. M. Shim Evaluation of lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus with positron emission tomography Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2001; 71(1): 290 - 294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Flamen, A. Lerut, E. Van Cutsem, J. P. Cambier, A. Maes, W. De Wever, M. Peeters, P. De Leyn, D. Van Raemdonck, and L. Mortelmans The utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 2000; 120(6): 1085 - 1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Flamen, A. Lerut, E. Van Cutsem, W. De Wever, M. Peeters, S. Stroobants, P. Dupont, G. Bormans, M. Hiele, P. De Leyn, et al. Utility of Positron Emission Tomography for the Staging of Patients With Potentially Operable Esophageal Carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol., September 18, 2000; 18(18): 3202 - 3210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): James D. Luketich Tracey L. Weigel Robert J. Keenan Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Luketich, J. D. Articles by Meltzer, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Luketich, J. D. Articles by Meltzer, C. C.