Nuclear medicine in gastroenterology


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Nuclear medicine in gastroenterology

  1. 1. Nuclear Medicine in Gastroenterology
  2. 2. Nuclear Medicine techniques provide this functional information that can be vital in early diagnosis and can help in appropriate management
  3. 3. GASTROINTESTINAL IMAGING Liver-spleen scintigraphy : 99mTc- sulfur colloid GI bleeding : 99mTc-RBC Ectopic gastric mucosal scan : 99mTcO4-
  4. 4. Normal liver scan Multiple SOL in liver
  5. 5. FNH
  6. 6. Tc-99m RBC scan: Hemangioma
  7. 7. Meckel’s scan
  8. 8. CHOLESCINTIGRAPHY biliary obstruction, D.D. of biliary atresia and neonatal hepatitis, bile leakage Normal : liver (5 mins), intrahepatic biles ducts (10-15 mins), common bile, gall bladder and duodenum duct (15-30 mins), small intestine (>30 mins)
  9. 9. Hepatobiliary physiology: Tc-99m Mebrofenin study Normal scan Biliary atresia
  10. 10. 24h7h2h 4h 1h30m15m5m
  11. 11. MECKEL SCAN
  12. 12. PET Assembly
  13. 13. GASTROINTESTINAL MALIGNANCIES Colorectal Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Esophageal and Gastric Small Bowel: Adenoca, Sarcomas/GIST, Carcinoids, Lymphomas etc.
  14. 14. CT PET Lesion
  15. 15. ‘….PET imaging is typically used to measure metabolic activity which is increased in tumors. PET-CT system have a number of advantages over CT or PET imaging alone that may allow more accurate assessment of tumor response by distinguishing scar tissue from residual tumor and by facilitating easier orthogonal measurements in three planes. Therefore, modification of RECIST guidelines to incorporate this new technology may have added benefit..’
  16. 16. Macheda ML Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer. J Cell Physiol 2005; 202: 654-662.
  17. 17. Normal PET Scan Transverse Coronal Sagittal MIP
  18. 18. Colorectal Malignancies: Initial evaluation •Diagnosis based on Colonoscopy •Preoperative staging: Intraoperatively •Preoperative staging with FDG PET •Good sensitivity for detection of primaries (FP: IBD) •Poor performance for regional LN involvement •Better sensitivity and specificity than CT for hepatic mets detection Kantarova I J Nuc Med 2003; 44: 1784-1788 Mukai Oncology Reports 2000; 7: 85-87 Abdel-Nabi Radiology 1998; 206: 755-760.
  19. 19. 65 yr old pt presenting for initial staging of colon ca
  20. 20. Incidental FDG uptake in GI tract on PET/CT Agress H Radiology 2004; 230(2): 417-422 Kamel EM J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1804-1810 Gutman F Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 495-500 No. of WB PET Incidental focal FDG uptake Unexpected proven tumors (histopath cnfrmd) N=1750 3.3% 21/42 pts N=3281 3% 69/98 pts N=1716 2.6% 13/20 advance neoplasms
  21. 21. Colorectal Carcinoma: Detection of recurrence •70% are resected with curative intent (1/3rd have recurrence within 2 years •25% have recurrence to one site and are potentially curable by surgery •Conventional methods for rec. detectn •CEA: Elevated in only~2/3rd of pts; no localizatn •CT: Suboptimal for peritoneal and mesenteric LN mets and for differentiation of post tr changes from recurrence •Barium enema: local recurrence (accuracy 80%)
  22. 22. •For rec. Sensitivity~90% & Specificity>70%
  23. 23. Colorectal Ca: FDG PET for rec. detection •Meta-analysis: 11 studies (n=577 pts) •Sensitivity: 97% •Specificity: 75% (higher for local recurrence and hepatic mets>95%) •Change of management: 29% •Summary of literature for recurrence evaluation: •Sensitivity: PET 94% CT 79% (2244 pt studies) •Specificity: PET 87% CT 73% (2244 pt studies) •Change in management: 32% (915 pt studies) Huener RH J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1177-1189 Gambhir SS J Nucl Med 2001; 42 (suppl): 9S-12S
  24. 24. s10
  25. 25. Ca colon, rising CEA with anastomotic recurrence confirmed on endoscopy
  26. 26. FDG PET, CT and MRI for detection of colorectal hepatic mets: A meta-analysis •Meta-analysis comparing non-invasive methods: 61/165 data sets included Bipat S Radiology 2005; 237: 123-131 Patient Lesion Lesion>1 cm CT-non helical 60% 52% 74% CT-helical 65% 64% 74% MR no Gad 76% 66% 65% MR Gad 69% MR SPIO 90% PET 95% 76%
  27. 27. Ca Colon pre treatment: Surgically resectable hepatic mets (black arrow) in addition to primary (blue arrow)
  28. 28. FDG PET for detection of extrahepatic mets •Study of over 155 pts analyzed by site of lesions •Sensitivity: FDG PET>CT for all locations except lungs where they are equivalent (FDG PET particularly helpful for abdomen, pelvis and retroperitoneum) •Specificity: FDG PET>CT at all sites, except the retroperitoneum Valk PE Arch Surg 1999; 134: 503-511
  29. 29. Diffuse Omental metastasis from Ca colon
  30. 30. Metastatic colon Ca: Known liver mets, unsuspected bone mets
  31. 31. Ca rectum pretreatment evaluation: Unsuspected femoral metastasis
  32. 32. 37 yr F; h/o metastatic colonic ca to liver s/p colectomy and hepatic resection presenting for restaging
  33. 33. FDG PET for detection of mets in pts with rising CEA levels and normal work up including CT •Compiled data from four studies show that FDG PET demonstrated tumor in 84% (142/169 pts) and allowed surgical resection in 26% pts. Flanagan FL Ann Surg 1998; 227: 319-323 Valk PE Arch Surg 1999; 134: 503-511 Maldonando A Clin Pos Imaging 2000; 3: 170 Flamen P Eur J Cancer 2001; 37: 862-869
  34. 34. Clinical impact of FDG PET in Colorectal Cancer
  35. 35. Clinical impact of FDG PET in patients with Colorectal Carcinoma: Survival data •Survival at 3 years of patients with FDG PET: 77% (higher than historical series) •Survival at 5 years of hepatic mets preop. staged with: •CIM (19 studies with 6,019): 30% •FDG PET (100 patients): 58% •Contribution: Detection of occult disease and reduction of futile surgeries Strasberg SM Ann Surg 2001; 233: 320 Fernandez FG Ann Surg 2004; 240 (3): 438-447
  36. 36. Monitoring response to chemoembolization
  37. 37. H/o RFA stable disease on CT; active on PET
  38. 38. Conclusion: FDG PET in Colorectal Carcinoma •Diagnosis: Incidental focal uptake in GI tract:~30-50% are malignant •Detection of recurrence: •Presurg tumor N & M staging: unsuspected mets, extrahepatic mets (PET>CT) •Rising CEA levels in absence of known source •Equivocal lesions: post surgical sites, liver etc. •Change in management in ~30% of pts •Detections of hepatic mets: •Sensitivity of PET-CT>MR>ceCT
  39. 39. Esophageal Cancer •Prospective study of 74 pts comparing FDG PET, CT and EUS: FDG PET CT+EUS CT EUS Primary Sens: 95% Locoregn LN Sens: 33% sp: 89% Sens: 81% sp: 67% Stage IV Sens: 74% Sp: 90% Sens: 47 Sp: 78% Sens: 41 Sp: 83% Sens: 42 Sp: 94% •Flamen P J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3202-3210
  40. 40. Esophageal cancer: Effectiveness of strategies •Comparison of 6 strategies: •CT alone •CT+EUS with FNA •CT+thoracoscopy and laparoscopy (TL) •CT+EUS with FNA+TL •CT+PET+EUS with FNA: most effective •PET+EUS+FNA: most effective •Wallace Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 74: 1026-1032
  41. 41. 80 yr old man referred for initial staging of ca eso
  42. 42. Suspected case of ca esophagus (wall thickening on CT) Unsuspected right hip bone mets
  43. 43. Carcinoma of Pancreas: Pre-treatment staging Metastasis in Liver Transverse Coronal Sagittal MIP
  44. 44. FDG PET in Hepatocellular Carcinomas
  45. 45. FDG PET in Cholangioca and GB ca
  46. 46. FDG PET in Cholangioca and GB ca 63 yr male with h/o surgery for GB cancer 3 yrs earlier; Diagnosis: Recurrent GB carcinoma
  47. 47. Carcinoma of Duodenum: Pre-treatment staging Transverse Coronal Sagittal MIP
  48. 48. •Account for 0.1 to 0.3% of all GIT tumors. 70% benign and malignant in 30% cases. •Typically multiple tumors, tend to be located predominantly in small intestine, arise from muscularis propria and have an exophytic growth pattern •Express c-kit (CD-117) a tyrosine kinase growth factor receptor GIST •Imatinib Mesylate a tyrosine kinase inhibitor is used in treatment of non-resectable GIST lesions
  49. 49. •In patients with recurrent GIST FDG PET has a similar sensitivity and specificity (86% and 98%respectively) as CT scan •However FDG PET predicts response to therapy earlier than CT in up to 22.5% of patients. This is because change in size of tumor is not a reliable indicator of tumor response. •Accurate tumor response can be predicted in about 85% of patients after 1 month of therapy and in 100% patients between 3 to 6 months. GIST
  50. 50. GIST showing response to Imatinib in 6 weeks
  51. 51. GIST showing response to Imatinib 24 hr post tr 3 weeksBaseline scan
  52. 52. Simple technique of water ingestion can clear a suspected hypermetabolic focus proving it to be non- malignant
  53. 53. Referring Surgeons’ Questions: Is there a viable disease in the pelvis in this treated case of abdominal NHL? Repeat spot view post laxative Initial view
  54. 54. •FALSE NEGATIVES •Small volume disease (<1 cm) or necrotic lesions with only thin rim of viable tissue •Mucinous carcinomas (Sensitivity 58% vs. 92% for non-mucinous lesions) LIMITATIONS •FALSE POSITIVES •Trauma, infection, granulomatous disease •Uptake at site of previous anastomosis •Post RT (Do PET after 2 to 3 months of RT)
  55. 55. •A paradigm shift from “size” criterion to “biology” of tumor is required to make an effective use of this modality in patient management. CONCLUSIONS •FDG PET can play a very important role in Staging, Treatment monitoring and evaluation of recurrences in GI malignancies.
  56. 56. •However it is not a “magic wand”. Like any other diagnostic modality it has its own limitations in the evaluation of GI malignancies (uptake in the inflammatory lesions, low uptake in mucinous tumors & in the lesions < 1 cm and normal tracer uptake in the gut that may interfere in lesion evaluation) •Nevertheless with a judicious use of PET in appropriate clinical scenario we can hope for a better patient care. CONCLUSIONS
  57. 57. Hence it is imperative to use the diagnostic procedures judiciously…. Along with appropriate clinical judgment to alleviate the patient’s anxiety and help in patient’s management
  58. 58. THANK YOU