Diagnostic accuracy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for detection of advanced colorectal adenoma

Aim: To determine the accuracy of 2-[¹⁸F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET) in the detection of advanced colorectal adenomas. Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, patient consent was waived by the institutional review board. Combined FDG whole-body PET and computed tomography (CT) images (2000–2009) were re-read and compared with reports of complete colonoscopy performed up to 1 year after the PET examination. One or more areas of focal colonic uptake greater than the background indicated a positive PET result, irrespective of standardized uptake value (SUV). Lesion and patient-level measures of PET accuracy with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: One hundred and eighty patients undergoing colonoscopy with or without biopsy underwent PET within 1 year prior to colonoscopy. There were 92 women and 88 men (mean age 63.3 years). Indications for PET were extent of disease and treatment response in all cases. Patients had non-colorectal cancer (n = 160) or colon cancer (n = 20). One hundred and fourteen FDG-avid lesions were present. In 33, there was no colonoscopic correlate. Two hundred and fifty-eight biopsies revealed tubular adenomas (n = 91, one with intra-mucosal cancer), tubulovillous adenomas (n = 28), adenocarcinoma (n = 37), inflammation (n = 22), hyperplastic polyps (n = 54), serrated adenoma (n = 5), metastatic disease (n = 5), normal/benign mucosa or submucosal benign tumors (n = 13) or miscellaneous (n = 3). Per-lesion performance of PET showed a sensitivity of 38% (95% CI: 31–46; 64/167) for all adenomas and carcinomas and 58% (95% CI: 49–67; 57/98) for lesions ≥10 mm. At the patient level, for all adenomas and carcinomas the sensitivity was 54% (95% CI: 44–63; 61/113), specificity 100% (pre-defined), positive predictive value (PPV) 100% (pre-defined), and negative predictive value (NPV) 56% (95% CI: 47–65; 67/119). For patients with advanced adenoma, PET sensitivity was 49% (95% CI: 35–63; 26/53) specificity, 100%, PPV 100% and NPV 82% (95% CI: 76–88; 127/154). Five of 37 adenocarcinomas were not detected, one of which was mucinous at histology. Conclusion: FDG PET detected most cancers, but only identified one-half of patients harbouring advanced adenomas. Based on the data, PET cannot be relied upon to accurately identify patients with advanced adenoma