Diagnostic accuracy of serial ct/magnetic resonance imaging review vs. positron emission tomography/ct in colorectal cancer patients with suspected and known recurrence

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 253-259

  Potter, Kathleen C ^a   Husband, Janet E ^a   Houghton, Sasha L ^a   Thomas, Karen ^a   Brown, Gina ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer recurrence; Imaging; MRI; PET

Indexed keywords

CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METASTASIS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 64049115717     PISSN: 00123706     EISSN: 15300358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e31819d11e6     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Kievit J. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:986Y99.
2. Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Haller DG, et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8664Y70.
3. Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2003;3:26.
4. Jeffery GM, Hickey BE, Hider P. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002:CD002200.
5. Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP, O'Dwyer ST. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2002;324:813.
6. Desch CE, Benson AB 3rd, Somerfield MR, et al. Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2005;23: 8512Y9.
7. Chau I, Allen MJ, Cunningham D, et al. The value of routine serum carcino-embryonic antigen measurement and computed tomography in the surveillance of patients after adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22: 1420Y9.
8. Blomqvist L, Holm T, Goranson H, Jacobsson H, Ohlsen H, Larsson SA. MR imaging, CT and CEA scintigraphy in the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal carcinoma. Acta Radiol 1996;37:779Y84.
9. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1177Y89.
10. Delbeke D, Vitola JV, Sandler MP, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:1196Y201.
11. Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027Y36.
12. Anonymous. What is the Government doing to improve outcomes for patients with bowel cancer? Colorectal Dis 2004;6:521Y4.