Evaluation of recurrent disease in the re-staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Use of CEA and CA 19-9 in patient selection

  • Authors:
    • Agostino Chiaravalloti
    • Alessandro Fiorentini
    • Erika Palombo
    • Davide Rinino
    • Annamaria Lacanfora
    • Roberta Danieli
    • Carmen Di Russo
    • Daniele Di Biagio
    • Ettore Squillaci
    • Orazio Schillaci
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: September 15, 2016     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.5143
  • Pages: 4209-4213
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The aim of the present retrospective study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in assessing the recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) with regard to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19‑9 (CA 19‑9). 18F‑FDG PET/CT was performed in 100 patients for the re‑staging of CRC. Therapy was discontinued prior to the examination. The mean (± standard deviation) CEA value (measured ~30 days prior to PET/CT examination) was 23.71 (±107) ng/ml, whereas the CA 19‑9 value was 72 (±190.3) U/ml. Differences in CEA and CA 19‑9 values in patients with scans that were positive or negative for recurrence were analyzed by means of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ROC curves were used for the calculation of the sensitivity and specificity of 18F‑FDG PET/CT for the CEA and CA 19‑9 levels. The results of the 18F‑FDG PET/CT were found to be associated with the CEA level (P=0.001), but not with the CA 19‑9 level (P=0.43). PET/CT was positive for recurrence in 60 patients (60.0%), whose mean CEA and CA 19‑9 values were 33.07±136.7 ng/ml and 75.24±192.3 U/ml, respectively. PET/CT was negative for recurrence in 40 patients (40.0%), whose mean CEA and CA 19‑9 values were 10.15±30 ng/ml and 67.76±190 U/ml, respectively. On the basis of ROC curve analysis, the best compromise between sensitivity and specificity was achieved for CEA levels of 3.5 ng/ml [sensitivity, 80%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 67‑89%; and specificity, 60%; 95% CI, 45‑78%]. The study concluded that the detection of recurrence by 18F‑FDG PET/CT in patients treated for CRC is associated with CEA, but not CA 19‑9 serum levels. Moreover, 18F‑FDG PET/CT should be recommended in patients with suspected CRC recurrence even when they present with CEA levels below the normal cut-off.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

November-2016
Volume 12 Issue 5

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Chiaravalloti A, Fiorentini A, Palombo E, Rinino D, Lacanfora A, Danieli R, Di Russo C, Di Biagio D, Squillaci E, Schillaci O, Schillaci O, et al: Evaluation of recurrent disease in the re-staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Use of CEA and CA 19-9 in patient selection. Oncol Lett 12: 4209-4213, 2016
APA
Chiaravalloti, A., Fiorentini, A., Palombo, E., Rinino, D., Lacanfora, A., Danieli, R. ... Schillaci, O. (2016). Evaluation of recurrent disease in the re-staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Use of CEA and CA 19-9 in patient selection. Oncology Letters, 12, 4209-4213. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.5143
MLA
Chiaravalloti, A., Fiorentini, A., Palombo, E., Rinino, D., Lacanfora, A., Danieli, R., Di Russo, C., Di Biagio, D., Squillaci, E., Schillaci, O."Evaluation of recurrent disease in the re-staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Use of CEA and CA 19-9 in patient selection". Oncology Letters 12.5 (2016): 4209-4213.
Chicago
Chiaravalloti, A., Fiorentini, A., Palombo, E., Rinino, D., Lacanfora, A., Danieli, R., Di Russo, C., Di Biagio, D., Squillaci, E., Schillaci, O."Evaluation of recurrent disease in the re-staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Use of CEA and CA 19-9 in patient selection". Oncology Letters 12, no. 5 (2016): 4209-4213. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.5143