Cargando…
The Value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Diagnosing Pancreatic Lesions: Comparison With CA19-9, Enhanced CT or Enhanced MR
Objective: To investigate the value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing pancreatic lesions, and compare it with CA19-9, contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), and contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMR). Methods: Cases of patients with suspected pancreatic lesions examined between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2017 were re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8531126/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34692714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.668697 |
Sumario: | Objective: To investigate the value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing pancreatic lesions, and compare it with CA19-9, contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), and contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMR). Methods: Cases of patients with suspected pancreatic lesions examined between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. CA19-9, CECT and CEMR within 2 weeks of PET/CT were evaluated. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT with CA19-9, CECT and CEMR as well as combined tests. Results: A total of 467 cases were examined in this study, including 293 males and 174 females, with an average age of 57.79 ± 12.68 y (16–95 y). Cases in the malignant group (n = 248) had significantly higher SUVmax (7.34 ± 4.17 vs. 1.70 ± 2.68, P < 0.001) and CA19-9 (663.21 ± 531.98 vs. 87.80 ± 218.47, P < 0.001) than those in the benign group (n = 219). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/CT were 91.9, 96.3, and 94.0%, respectively. Those for CECT were 83.6, 77.8, 81.2%, respectively; and 91.2, 75.0, 81.7% were for CEMR. PET/CT corrected 14.7% (28/191) CECT diagnoses and 12.2% (10/82) CEMR diagnoses. Although the diagnostic efficiency of CA19-9 was acceptable (80.0, 69.0, 74.9% respectively), the joint application of PET/CT and CA19-9 could significantly enhance the diagnostic efficiency compared with PET/CT alone (sen 97.4 vs. 90.5%, P = 0.0003; spe 100.0 vs. 95.2%, P = 0.0047). Conclusions: PET/CT has sensitivity similar to CECT, CEMR and significantly higher specificity and accuracy, helping reduce false diagnoses of morphological images. Combining PET/CT with CA19-9 could enhance diagnostic efficiency. |
---|