대장-직장암의 간전이에서 FDG PET과 MR의 진단 성능

Diagnostic Accuracy of PET and MR for Detecting Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer

  • 박은경 (서울대학교 의과대학 핵의학교실) ;
  • 강원준 (서울대학교 의과대학 핵의학교실) ;
  • 어재선 (서울대학교 의과대학 핵의학교실) ;
  • 이동수 (서울대학교 의과대학 핵의학교실) ;
  • 정준기 (서울대학교 의과대학 핵의학교실) ;
  • 이명철 (서울대학교 의과대학 핵의학교실)
  • Park, Eun-Kyung (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Won-Jun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Eo, Jae-Seon (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Dong-Soo (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Chung, June-Key (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Myung-Chul (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • 발행 : 2006.10.31

초록

목적: 대장-직장암에서 간전이 여부를 진단하기 위한 영상 검사 방법으로 기존에는 CT 촬영을 시행하여 왔다. 최근에는 MR 및 FDG PET을 간전이 진단에 적극적으로 활용하고 있는 추세이다. 이에 이 연구에서는 대장-직장암 환자에서 간전이에 대한 FDG PET의 진단적 가치를 MR과 비교하여 보고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법 대장: 직장암으로 확진된 환자들 중에 간전이를 진단 또는 배제하기 위하여 CT 이외에도 MR 및 F-18-FDG PET (conventional PET 및 fusion PET)을 모두 시행한 환자는 26명이었다. 이 연구에서는 26명의 환자들에게서 영상화 된 35개의 병변을 분석의 대상으로 삼고, FDG PET과 MR의 민감도 및 특이도를 간분엽절제술 및 종양절제술을 통해 얻어진 병리소견 및 임상소견 또는 추적 영상 소견을 표준으로 하여 각각 구하였다. FDG PET과 MR은 평균 7일 간격으로 시행되었으며, 두 검사 사이에 치료적 요법을 시행 받은 환자는 한 명도 없었다. 결과: 병리 결과, 35개의 병변 중에서 18개(51.4%)의 병변은 간전이로 판명되었으며, 나머지 17개(48.6%)는 낭종, 지방, 혈관종, 농양, 호산구성농양 등의 양성 병변으로 판명되었다. 35개의 병변 중 MR과 FDG PET의 진단이 일치한 병변은 간전이 17개(94.4%)와 양성 병변 13개(76.5%)로 전체적으로는 85.7%의 일치도를 보였다. FDG PET의 민감도는 94.4% (17/18), 특이도는 94.1% (16/17)였으며 MR의 민감도는 100% (18/18), 특이도는 82.4% (14/17)이었다. MR에서 위양성을 보였던 3개의 병변은 낭종과 호산구성농양이었고, FDG PET에서 위음성을 보였던 1개의 병변은 직경 8 mm의 작은 병변이었다. 직경 10 mm 이하인 병변들만 분석했을 때, 총 20개의 병변에 대하여 FDG PET은 민감도 85.7%(6/7), 특이도 92.3%(12/13), MR은 민감도 100%(7/7), 특이도 76.9%(10/13)를 보였다. 그 외에도 간전이 병변의 평균 maxSUV는 $6.7{\pm}3.8$로 간전이와 양성병변을 최적으로 감별할 수 있는 maxSUV의 cutoff value는 3.1 이었다. (AUC=0.897, p<0.001, 민감도 83.3%, 특이도 94.1%) 결론: FDG PET은 간전이를 진단하는데 MR과 대등한 민감도와 특이도를 보였다. 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지는 않았지만 간전이에 대한 FDG PET의 음성예측도는 MR보다 높았으며, 직경 10 mm 미만의 작은 병변에 대해서도 FDG PET은 우수한 성적을 보였다. 향후 대장암의 간전이 진단에 FDG PET이 유용하게 이용될 것이다.

Purpose: Although computed tomography (CT) is widely used for diagnosing liver metastasis from colorectal cancer, diagnostic accuracy of CT is not satisfactory. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and F-18 FDG PET has been reported to be superior to CT. However, studies on direct comparison of PET and MR are scarce. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET and MR in detecting liver metastasis from colorectal cancer. Materials and Methods: Among 363 colorectal cancer patients who underwent F-18 FDG PET (ECAT, Siemens-CTI, Knoxville; Gemini, Philips, Milpitas, U.S.), 26 patients (M:F=17:9, age=$62{\pm}11$) underwent MR to evaluate suspicious metastatic liver lesions. Finally, 35 liver lesions detected by CT from 26 patients were enrolled for analysis. PET and MR results were compared with pathologic reports, clinical findings or follow-up results. Results: Of the 35 lesions, 18 lesions (51.4%) were diagnosed as liver metastases, while remaining 17 (48.6%) as benign. The sensitivity and the specificity of PET were 94.4% and 94.1%, respectively, compared to 100% and 82.4% for MR. MR and PET was concordant in 30 lesions (85.7%: 17 metastatic (94.4%) and 13 benign (76.5%) lesions. ROC curve analysis revealed maximal SUV of 3.1 as the optimum standard in differentiating metastatic from benign liver lesions (AUC=0.897, p<0.001, sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 94.1%). For small lesions less than 1 cm ln diameter (n=20), diagnostic accuracy of PET was comparable to that of MR. Conclusion: F-18 FDG PET showed good diagnostic performance in detecting liver metastasis from colorectal cancer, which was comparable to MR.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 1997;47:5-13 https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.47.1.5
  2. Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Jager GJ, Oyen WJ, Ruers TJ. The Impact of F18-Deoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography in the Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Cancer 2005;104: 2658-70 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21569
  3. Fusai G, Davidson BR. Management of colorectal liver metastases. Colorectal Dis 2003;5(1):223
  4. Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Fischman AJ, Kadavigere R, Blake M, Hahn PF et al. Detection of Liver Metastases from Adenocarcinoma of the Colon and Pancreas: Comparison of Magnafodipir Trisodium-Enhanced Liver MRI and Whole Body FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185 :239-46 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.1.01850239
  5. Kalva SP, Sahani DV, Ryan D, Fischman AJ, Hahn PF, Mueller P et al. Detection of Liver Metastases From Gastrointestinal Cancer: Comparison Of High Resolution MnDPDP Enhanced MRI And FDG PET. Acad Radiol 2005; 12(1 ):S 17-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2004.10.059
  6. Yang M, Martin DR, Karabulut N, Frick MP. Comparison of MR and FDG-PET imaging for evaluation of liver metastases. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;17:343-9 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10265
  7. Bohm B, Voth M, Geoghegan J, Hellfritzsch H, Petrovich A, Scheele J, et al., Impact of positron emission tomography on strategy in liver resection for primary and secondary liver tumors. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:266-72 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-003-0527-6
  8. Vitola JV, Delbeke D, Sandler MP, Campbell MG, Powers TA, Wright JK, et al. Positron emission tomography to stage suspected metastatic colorectal carcinoma to the liver. Am J Surg 1996;171:216 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(32)90483-8
  9. Hustinx R, Paulus P, Jacquet N, Jerusalem G, Bury T, Rigo P. Clinical evaluation of whole-body $^{18}F$-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of liver metastases. Ann Oncol 1998;9:397401
  10. Saunders TH, Mendes Ribeiro HK, Gleeson FV. New techniques for imaging colorectal cancer: the use of MRI, PET and radioimmunoscintigraphy for primary staging and follow-up. Br Med Bull 2002;64:81-99 https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/64.1.81
  11. Seneterre E, Taourel P, Bouvier Y, Pradel J, Van Beers B, Daures JP, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases: ferumoxides enhanced MR imaging versus unenhanced MR imaging and CT during arterial portography. Radiology 1996;200:785-92 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.200.3.8756932
  12. Hagspiel KD, Neidi KF, Eichenberger AC, Weder W, Marincek B. Detection of liver metastases: comparison of superparamagnetic iron oxide enhanced and unenhanced MR at 1.5 T with dynamic CT, intraoperative ultrasound and percutaneous ultrasound. Radiology 1995; 196:471-8 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.196.2.7617863
  13. Zhuang H, Sinha P, Pourdehnad M, Duarte PS, Yamamoto AJ, Alavi A. The role of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-deoxyglucose in identifying colorectal cancer metastases to liver. Nucl Med Commun 2000;21:793-8 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006231-200009000-00002
  14. Yasuda S, Takahashi W, Takagi S, Ide M, Shohtsu A. Primary colorectal cancers detected with PET. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1998;28:638-40 https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/28.10.638
  15. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, Warren RS, Thoeni RF. Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. Radiology 2002;224:74856
  16. Kim J, Ahmad SA, Lowy AM, Buell JF, Pennington LJ, Moulton JS, et al. An algorithm for the accurate identification of benign liver lesions. Am J Surg 2004;187:274-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2003.11.018
  17. Hain SF, Fogelman I. Recent advances in imaging hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnosis, staging and response assessment: functional imaging. Cancer J 2004;10:121-7 https://doi.org/10.1097/00130404-200403000-00007
  18. Khandani AH, Wahl RL. Applications of PET in Liver Imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 2005;43:849-60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2005.05.008
  19. Lai DT, Fulham M, Stephen MS, Chu KM, Solomon M, Thompson JF, et al. The role of whole-body positron emission tomography with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in identifying operable colorectal cancer metastasis to the liver. Arch Surg 1996;131:703-7 https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430190025007
  20. Kim JS,Lee JS, Lee DS, Park EK, Kim JH, Kim JI, et al. Quantitative Differences between X-Ray CT-Based and 137Cs-Based Attention Corrextion in Philips Gemini PET/CT. Kor J Nucl Med 2005;39:182-90