Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies: CT vs PET

Mi Jung Lee, Mi Jin Yun, Mi Suk Park, Seung Hwan Cha, Myeong Jin Kim, Jong Doo Lee, Ki Whang Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the preoperative detection of paraaortic lymph node (PAN) metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with intra-abdominal malignancies who underwent both CT and PET before lymphadenectomy were included in this study. Histopathologically, 13 patients had metastatic PAN, while 53 had non-metastatic PAN. The CT criteria for metastasis were: short diameter of > 8 mm, lobular or irregular shape, and/or combined ancillary findings, including necrosis, conglomeration, vessel encasement, and infiltration. The PET criterion was positive fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of both modalities were compared with the pathologic findings, and the false positive and false negative cases with both CT and PET were analyzed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CT were 61.5%, 84.9%, 50%, 90% and 80.3%, respectively. For PET, the percentages were 46.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.3%, and 89.4%. Additionally, there were 8 false positive CT cases (8/53, 15.1%) and zero false positive PET cases. Of the 13 metastatic PANs, there were 5 false negative CT scans (38.5%) and 7 (53.9%) false negative PET scans. CONCLUSION: For detecting PAN metastasis, CT is more sensitive than PET, while PET is more specific.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4434-4438
Number of pages5
JournalWorld Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume15
Issue number35
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Dec 21

Fingerprint

Positron-Emission Tomography
Lymph Nodes
Neoplasm Metastasis
Tomography
Neoplasms
Sensitivity and Specificity
Lymph Node Excision
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Necrosis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Lee, Mi Jung ; Yun, Mi Jin ; Park, Mi Suk ; Cha, Seung Hwan ; Kim, Myeong Jin ; Lee, Jong Doo ; Kim, Ki Whang. / Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies : CT vs PET. In: World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2009 ; Vol. 15, No. 35. pp. 4434-4438.
@article{4cb77bc5b53c4e73a05474f13dc099a5,
title = "Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies: CT vs PET",
abstract = "AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the preoperative detection of paraaortic lymph node (PAN) metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with intra-abdominal malignancies who underwent both CT and PET before lymphadenectomy were included in this study. Histopathologically, 13 patients had metastatic PAN, while 53 had non-metastatic PAN. The CT criteria for metastasis were: short diameter of > 8 mm, lobular or irregular shape, and/or combined ancillary findings, including necrosis, conglomeration, vessel encasement, and infiltration. The PET criterion was positive fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of both modalities were compared with the pathologic findings, and the false positive and false negative cases with both CT and PET were analyzed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CT were 61.5{\%}, 84.9{\%}, 50{\%}, 90{\%} and 80.3{\%}, respectively. For PET, the percentages were 46.2{\%}, 100{\%}, 100{\%}, 88.3{\%}, and 89.4{\%}. Additionally, there were 8 false positive CT cases (8/53, 15.1{\%}) and zero false positive PET cases. Of the 13 metastatic PANs, there were 5 false negative CT scans (38.5{\%}) and 7 (53.9{\%}) false negative PET scans. CONCLUSION: For detecting PAN metastasis, CT is more sensitive than PET, while PET is more specific.",
author = "Lee, {Mi Jung} and Yun, {Mi Jin} and Park, {Mi Suk} and Cha, {Seung Hwan} and Kim, {Myeong Jin} and Lee, {Jong Doo} and Kim, {Ki Whang}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
day = "21",
doi = "10.3748/wjg.15.4434",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "4434--4438",
journal = "World Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "1007-9327",
publisher = "WJG Press",
number = "35",

}

Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies : CT vs PET. / Lee, Mi Jung; Yun, Mi Jin; Park, Mi Suk; Cha, Seung Hwan; Kim, Myeong Jin; Lee, Jong Doo; Kim, Ki Whang.

In: World Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 15, No. 35, 21.12.2009, p. 4434-4438.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies

T2 - CT vs PET

AU - Lee, Mi Jung

AU - Yun, Mi Jin

AU - Park, Mi Suk

AU - Cha, Seung Hwan

AU - Kim, Myeong Jin

AU - Lee, Jong Doo

AU - Kim, Ki Whang

PY - 2009/12/21

Y1 - 2009/12/21

N2 - AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the preoperative detection of paraaortic lymph node (PAN) metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with intra-abdominal malignancies who underwent both CT and PET before lymphadenectomy were included in this study. Histopathologically, 13 patients had metastatic PAN, while 53 had non-metastatic PAN. The CT criteria for metastasis were: short diameter of > 8 mm, lobular or irregular shape, and/or combined ancillary findings, including necrosis, conglomeration, vessel encasement, and infiltration. The PET criterion was positive fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of both modalities were compared with the pathologic findings, and the false positive and false negative cases with both CT and PET were analyzed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CT were 61.5%, 84.9%, 50%, 90% and 80.3%, respectively. For PET, the percentages were 46.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.3%, and 89.4%. Additionally, there were 8 false positive CT cases (8/53, 15.1%) and zero false positive PET cases. Of the 13 metastatic PANs, there were 5 false negative CT scans (38.5%) and 7 (53.9%) false negative PET scans. CONCLUSION: For detecting PAN metastasis, CT is more sensitive than PET, while PET is more specific.

AB - AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the preoperative detection of paraaortic lymph node (PAN) metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with intra-abdominal malignancies who underwent both CT and PET before lymphadenectomy were included in this study. Histopathologically, 13 patients had metastatic PAN, while 53 had non-metastatic PAN. The CT criteria for metastasis were: short diameter of > 8 mm, lobular or irregular shape, and/or combined ancillary findings, including necrosis, conglomeration, vessel encasement, and infiltration. The PET criterion was positive fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of both modalities were compared with the pathologic findings, and the false positive and false negative cases with both CT and PET were analyzed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CT were 61.5%, 84.9%, 50%, 90% and 80.3%, respectively. For PET, the percentages were 46.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.3%, and 89.4%. Additionally, there were 8 false positive CT cases (8/53, 15.1%) and zero false positive PET cases. Of the 13 metastatic PANs, there were 5 false negative CT scans (38.5%) and 7 (53.9%) false negative PET scans. CONCLUSION: For detecting PAN metastasis, CT is more sensitive than PET, while PET is more specific.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72049113848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=72049113848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3748/wjg.15.4434

DO - 10.3748/wjg.15.4434

M3 - Article

C2 - 19764096

AN - SCOPUS:72049113848

VL - 15

SP - 4434

EP - 4438

JO - World Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - World Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 1007-9327

IS - 35

ER -