European radiology · 2026
Improved detection of local tumor progression after ablation or resection of colorectal liver metastases using [18F]FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT alone: results from a Dutch prospective cohort.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bijlstra O D, van Mossel S, Boekestijn B, Burgmans M C, van Persijn van Meerten E L, Rietbergen D D D, Shahbazi Feshtali S, Swijnenburg R J, van Velden F H P, Koffijberg H, de Geus-Oei L F, Mieog J S D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Post-treatment surveillance after locally treated colorectal liver metastases involves CEA measurement and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) scans. However, reactive tissue around ablated lesions can appear similar to viable tumor tissue on CECT, complicating the detection of local tumor progression (LTP). Therefore, a new imaging protocol was initiated, which incorporates [18F]FDG-PET/CT to complement CECT. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CECT for early detection of disease progression after resection or thermal ablation, compared to CECT alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study analyzed a prospective cohort of patients undergoing thermal ablation or resection, who received CECT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT scans 3-5 months post-treatment. Disease progression was confirmed by histology, consensus during a multidisciplinary team meeting or after extended follow-up. Diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CECT was compared to standard practice (CEA serum levels and CECT).
RESULTS: The final analysis included 64 patients with 154 lesions. 37 patients underwent ablation, 14 patients underwent resection, and 13 patients underwent combination therapy, resulting in 93 (60%) lesions being treated with thermal ablation and 61 (40%) lesions with resection. Disease progression was found in 66% of patients, with LTP detected in 25% of treated lesions. Compared to CECT, [18F]FDG-PET/CECT had a higher diagnostic accuracy for detecting local progression after thermal ablation (AUC 0.97 vs. 0.73, p = 0.001) and hepatic resection (AUC 0.96 vs. 0.69, p = 0.03), and for detection of extrahepatic disease (AUC 0.91 vs. 0.79, p = 0.03). CEA serum levels had low diagnostic accuracy for detecting disease progression (AUC 0.60).
CONCLUSION: [18F]FDG-PET/CECT improves diagnostic accuracy in the early follow-up of patients with locally treated colorectal liver metastases.
KEY POINTS: Question: Interpreting CECT scans after local treatment of colorectal liver metastases can be challenging because reactive tissue around treated lesions can appear similar to viable tumor tissue.
FINDINGS: [18F]FDG-PET/CECT improves the diagnostic accuracy of detecting local tumor progression after thermal ablation and resection of colorectal liver metastases.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: [18F]FDG-PET/CECT should be considered during follow-up after local treatment of colorectal liver metastases to identify and treat local tumor progression earlier.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study analyzed a prospective cohort of patients undergoing thermal ablation or resection, who received CECT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT scans 3-5 months post-treatment. Disease progression was confirmed by histology, consensus during a multidisciplinary team meeting or after extended follow-up. Diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CECT was compared to standard practice (CEA serum levels and CECT).
RESULTS: The final analysis included 64 patients with 154 lesions. 37 patients underwent ablation, 14 patients underwent resection, and 13 patients underwent combination therapy, resulting in 93 (60%) lesions being treated with thermal ablation and 61 (40%) lesions with resection. Disease progression was found in 66% of patients, with LTP detected in 25% of treated lesions. Compared to CECT, [18F]FDG-PET/CECT had a higher diagnostic accuracy for detecting local progression after thermal ablation (AUC 0.97 vs. 0.73, p = 0.001) and hepatic resection (AUC 0.96 vs. 0.69, p = 0.03), and for detection of extrahepatic disease (AUC 0.91 vs. 0.79, p = 0.03). CEA serum levels had low diagnostic accuracy for detecting disease progression (AUC 0.60).
CONCLUSION: [18F]FDG-PET/CECT improves diagnostic accuracy in the early follow-up of patients with locally treated colorectal liver metastases.
KEY POINTS: Question: Interpreting CECT scans after local treatment of colorectal liver metastases can be challenging because reactive tissue around treated lesions can appear similar to viable tumor tissue.
FINDINGS: [18F]FDG-PET/CECT improves the diagnostic accuracy of detecting local tumor progression after thermal ablation and resection of colorectal liver metastases.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: [18F]FDG-PET/CECT should be considered during follow-up after local treatment of colorectal liver metastases to identify and treat local tumor progression earlier.