2005
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography

Abstract: BACKGROUND Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18‐ fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) has been used to both detect and stage a variety of malignancies. The current study examined the value of PET for preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS Sixty‐eight patients (49 males and 19 females) with gastric adenocarcinoma, who were referred for preoperative FDG‐PET scans, were enrolled in this study. The patients underwent spiral‐computed tomography (CT) within 1 week of referral. The final diagnosis in all p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

13
144
1
12

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(170 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
13
144
1
12
Order By: Relevance
“…A few studies reported that poorly cohesive carcinoma had a worse prognosis than the other types according to the WHO classification [9], but other studies reported that the WHO classification did not exert a prognostic effect on the multivariate analysis [4,19]. Although the WHO classification may not be meaningful with respect to the prognosis, knowledge of the relationship between the primary tumor FDG uptake and histopathologic subtypes according to the WHO classification is important in patients with gastric cancer, because a low detection rate and FDG uptake have been reported in the poorly cohesive type of gastric carcinoma compared to the tubular type [24,38,39]. The reason for the low detection rate and FDG uptake in the poorly cohesive type is that the primary tumor is correlated with the mucin content within the tumor and is positively correlated with tumor cellularity [23,40], and poorly cohesive carcinoma is often composed of a mixture of signet ring cells and non-signet ring cells with a high mucinous pool [5,41].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A few studies reported that poorly cohesive carcinoma had a worse prognosis than the other types according to the WHO classification [9], but other studies reported that the WHO classification did not exert a prognostic effect on the multivariate analysis [4,19]. Although the WHO classification may not be meaningful with respect to the prognosis, knowledge of the relationship between the primary tumor FDG uptake and histopathologic subtypes according to the WHO classification is important in patients with gastric cancer, because a low detection rate and FDG uptake have been reported in the poorly cohesive type of gastric carcinoma compared to the tubular type [24,38,39]. The reason for the low detection rate and FDG uptake in the poorly cohesive type is that the primary tumor is correlated with the mucin content within the tumor and is positively correlated with tumor cellularity [23,40], and poorly cohesive carcinoma is often composed of a mixture of signet ring cells and non-signet ring cells with a high mucinous pool [5,41].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the sensitivity of FDG-PET for gastric cancer has been reported in some studies to range from 60 to 94% (Yeung et al, 1998;De Potter et al, 2002;Stahl et al, 2003;Yoshioka et al, 2003;Mochiki et al, 2004;Chen et al, 2005;Yun et al, 2005), the subjects used in those reports were primarily clinically diagnosed, preoperative, advanced cancer, or recurrent cancer cases, and thus the sensitivity values calculated in those studies may not represent screening sensitivity. Screening sensitivity can only be measured in an asymptomatic population, preferably by performing diagnostic examination such as endoscopy on all subjects in order to identify cancer subjects in the population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the validity of FDG-PET in cancer screening remains to be evaluated. Although the sensitivity of FDG-PET for gastric cancer is reported to be from 60 to 94%, most subjects evaluated in existing reports were limited to patients with advanced gastric cancers or recurrent cancers (Yeung et al, 1998;De Potter et al, 2002;Stahl et al, 2003;Yoshioka et al, 2003;Mochiki et al, 2004;Chen et al, 2005;Yun et al, 2005). There has been no study to measure screening sensitivity of FDG-PET for gastric cancer in average risk individuals.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…37,38 Because of this high level of specificity and tumor responsiveness to therapy, early response detection also has been described. 39,40 In this study, after a decrease in FDG uptake by 35% or more and assessment after 14 days of therapy, histopathologic response after 3 months of therapy was identified correctly in 77% of the patients.…”
Section: Gastric Cancermentioning
confidence: 99%