European radiology · 2026
Comparing the utility of FDG PET-CT and contrast-enhanced CT in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moore J L, Arora M, Sit C, Rahman R, Green M, Deere H, Lagergren J, Chicklore S, Chinaka F, Maisey N, Ngan S, Sita-Lumsden A, Qureshi A, Owczarczyk K, Knight W R C, Kelly M, Baker C R, Gossage J A, Subesinghe M, Davies A R, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Oesophagogastric Research Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: 2-deoxy-2[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography-CT (FDG PET-CT) is established in staging oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. It has an emerging role in assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) but its benefits over contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) remain unknown. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of CECT and FDG PET-CT in predicting pathological tumour (ypT) stage, nodal (ypN) stage, pathological treatment response and detecting distant metastases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-centre cohort study of patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma who underwent both CECT and FDG PET-CT before and after NACT. Radiological response was evaluated using the change in oesophageal thickness on CECT and the change in SUVmax for FDG PET-CT. Receiver-operator-characteristic analysis was performed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to determine the accuracy of CECT and FDG PET-CT to predict pathological stage and treatment response.
RESULTS: 105 patients were identified and 92 underwent surgical resection. For inclusion, FDG PET-CT and CECT had to be performed contemporaneously (same scanner, same hospital visit) (n = 66). CECT and FDG PET-CT were comparable for predicting ypT stage (AUC 0.65 vs. 0.62, p = 0.76) and ypN stage (AUC 0.52 vs. 0.53, p = 0.92). FDG PET-CT was a better predictor of pathological tumour response (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.51, p = 0.041). Eight patients had metastatic disease identified on restaging imaging; 8 (100%) by FDG PET-CT; 4 (50.0%) by CECT (p = 0.076).
CONCLUSIONS: CECT and FDG PET-CT are clinically useful for restaging following completion of NACT. FDG PET-CT was more accurate at response assessment and identified metastatic disease more frequently. The choice of imaging modality depends on balancing clinical utility with cost and accessibility.
KEY POINTS: Question: Is FDG PET-CT or contrast-enhanced CT more accurate in predicting pathological stage and treatment response following completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma?
FINDINGS: CECT and FDG PET-CT were comparable for predicting pathological stage. FDG PET-CT was a better predictor of tumour response and distant metastases than CECT.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CECT and FDG PET-CT are both useful for restaging after completion of NACT. FDG PET-CT may be most useful for patients with advanced disease where the likelihood of occult metastases is greatest and response assessment may impact clinical decision-making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-centre cohort study of patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma who underwent both CECT and FDG PET-CT before and after NACT. Radiological response was evaluated using the change in oesophageal thickness on CECT and the change in SUVmax for FDG PET-CT. Receiver-operator-characteristic analysis was performed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to determine the accuracy of CECT and FDG PET-CT to predict pathological stage and treatment response.
RESULTS: 105 patients were identified and 92 underwent surgical resection. For inclusion, FDG PET-CT and CECT had to be performed contemporaneously (same scanner, same hospital visit) (n = 66). CECT and FDG PET-CT were comparable for predicting ypT stage (AUC 0.65 vs. 0.62, p = 0.76) and ypN stage (AUC 0.52 vs. 0.53, p = 0.92). FDG PET-CT was a better predictor of pathological tumour response (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.51, p = 0.041). Eight patients had metastatic disease identified on restaging imaging; 8 (100%) by FDG PET-CT; 4 (50.0%) by CECT (p = 0.076).
CONCLUSIONS: CECT and FDG PET-CT are clinically useful for restaging following completion of NACT. FDG PET-CT was more accurate at response assessment and identified metastatic disease more frequently. The choice of imaging modality depends on balancing clinical utility with cost and accessibility.
KEY POINTS: Question: Is FDG PET-CT or contrast-enhanced CT more accurate in predicting pathological stage and treatment response following completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma?
FINDINGS: CECT and FDG PET-CT were comparable for predicting pathological stage. FDG PET-CT was a better predictor of tumour response and distant metastases than CECT.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CECT and FDG PET-CT are both useful for restaging after completion of NACT. FDG PET-CT may be most useful for patients with advanced disease where the likelihood of occult metastases is greatest and response assessment may impact clinical decision-making.