Mide Hastalıklarında PET-BT ve PET-MR
Özet
Mide hastalıklarının, özellikle de mide kanseri ve primer gastrik lenfomanın teşhisi, evrelemesi ve tedavi yönetiminde PET-BT ve PET-MR gibi hibrid görüntüleme teknolojilerinin klinik rolü ile kısıtlılıkları kritik bir öneme sahiptir. Anatomik ve fonksiyonel verileri entegre eden PET-BT, mide adenokarsinomlarında operasyon öncesi evrelemeye önemli katkılar sunmakta ve tek başına bilgisayarlı tomografiyle saptanamayan gizli metastazları %6-10 oranında açığa çıkarabilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, fizyolojik hareketler veya gastrit gibi benign durumlardaki FDG tutulumları malignite bulgularıyla karışabildiğinden, doğru bir ayırıcı tanı için hastanın klinik, radyolojik ve endoskopik verilerinin bir arada değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Diğer hibrid yöntem olan PET-MR ise yüksek yumuşak doku çözünürlüğü sunması ve iyonizan radyasyon içermemesiyle avantajlıdır. Ancak solunum ve gastrointestinal peristaltizm kaynaklı hareket artefaktları ile literatürdeki klinik veri yetersizliği, bu yöntemin mide tümörlerindeki kullanımını şimdilik sınırlandırmaktadır. Güncel yaklaşımlarda PET-BT’nin yeri giderek sağlamlaşırken, PET-MR’nin etkinliğinin gelecekteki geniş kapsamlı çalışmalarla netleşeceği öngörülmektedir.
The clinical significance and current limitations of hybrid imaging technologies, specifically PET-CT and PET-MR, are pivotal in the diagnosis, staging, and therapeutic management of gastric diseases, including gastric cancer and primary gastric lymphoma. By synergizing anatomical and functional parameters, PET-CT provides substantial value in the preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinomas, successfully identifying occult metastases in 6-10% of cases that routine contrast-enhanced CT scans fail to detect. However, because physiological variants or benign conditions such as gastritis can demonstrate FDG avidity mimicking malignancy, findings must be meticulously correlated with clinical, radiological, and endoscopic parameters to ensure accurate differentiation. Conversely, PET-MR represents an innovative modality characterized by superior soft-tissue contrast and the absence of ionizing radiation. Despite these clinical benefits, its adoption remains restricted due to technical vulnerabilities like motion artifacts from respiration or peristalsis, combined with a scarcity of large-scale clinical trials. Consequently, while PET-CT establishes a firmer role in daily oncology, the widespread utility of PET-MR depends on future investigations with larger cohorts.
Referanslar
Siewert JR, Böttcher K, Stein HJ, et al. Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer: ten-year results of the German Gastric Cancer Study. Ann Surg. 1998;228(4):449.
Washington K. of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(12):3077-9.
Juweid ME, & Cheson, BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med, 2006;354(5), 496-507.
Scott AM. Current status of positron emission tomography in oncology. Australas Radiol, 2002;46(2), 154-162.
Findlay JM, Antonowicz S, Segaran A, et al. Routinely staging gastric cancer with 18 F-FDG PET-CT detects additional metastases and predicts early recurrence and death after surgery. Eur Radiol, 2019;29(5), 2490-2498.
Stahl A, Ott K, Weber W, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2003;30(2), 288-295.
Yeung HWD, Macapinlac H, Karpeh M, et al. Accuracy of FDG-PET in gastric cancer: preliminary experience. Clin Positron Imaging, 1998;1(4), 213-221.
Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, et al. Evaluation of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg, 2004;28(3), 247-253.
Chen J, Cheong JH, Yun MJ, et al. Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International J Am Cancer Society, 2005;103(11), 2383-2390.
Takahashi H, Ukawa K, Ohkawa N, et al. Significance of 18 F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-glucose accumulation in the stomach on positron emission tomography. Ann Nucl Med 2009;23(4), 391-397.
Koga H, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, et al. An analysis of the physiological FDG uptake pattern in the stomach. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17(8), 733-738.
Serrano OK, Love C, Goldman I, et al. The value of FDG‐PET in the staging of gastric adenocarcinoma: A single institution retrospective review. J Surg Oncol , 2016;113(6), 640-646.
Smyth E, Schöder H, Strong VE, et al. A prospective evaluation of the utility of 2‐deoxy‐2‐[18F] fluoro‐D‐glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging locally advanced gastric cancer. Cancer, 2012;118(22), 5481-5488.
Kitajima K, Nakajo M, Kaida H, et al. Present and future roles of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of gastrointestinal cancer: an update. Nagoya J Med Sci 2017;79(4), 527.
Gauthé M, Richard-Molard M, Cacheux W, et al. Role of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in gastrointestinal cancers. Dig Liver Dis, 2015;47(6), 443-454.
Malibari N, Hickeson M, & Lisbona, R. PET/computed tomography in the diagnosis and staging of gastric cancers. PET Clin, 2015;10(3), 311-326.
Kawanaka Y, Kitajima K, Fukushima K, et al. Added value of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of advanced gastric cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced MDCT. Eur J Radiol, 2016;85(5), 989-995.
Papageorgiou SG, Filippi VP, & Chatziioannou SN (2016). The Role of PET/CT Scan in Primary Gastric Lymphomas. In PET/CT in Lymphomas (pp. 251-256). Springer, Cham.
Treglia G, Zucca E, Sadeghi R, et al. Detection rate of fluorine‐18‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with marginal zone lymphoma of MALT type: a meta‐analysis. Hematol Oncol, 2015;33(3), 113-124.
Zelenetz AD, Gordon LI, Wierda WG, et al. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2014;12(6), 916-946.
Albano D, Bertoli M, Ferro P, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in gastric MALT lymphoma: a bicentric experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2017;44(4), 589-597.
Cui J, Zhao P, Ren Z, et al. Evaluation of dual time point imaging 18F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating malignancy from benign gastric disease. Med, 2015;94(33).
Antoch G, & Bockisch A. Combined PET/MRI: a new dimension in whole-body oncology imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2009;36(1), 113-120.
Balyasnikova S, Löfgren J, de Nijs R, et al. PET/MR in oncology: an introduction with focus on MR and future perspectives for hybrid imaging. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;2(4), 458.
Zaidi H, Montandon ML, & Alavi A. The clinical role of fusion imaging using PET, CT, and MR imaging. PET Clin, 2008;3(3), 275-291.
Vaska P, & Cao T (2013, January). The state of instrumentation for combined positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. In Seminars in nuclear medicine. WB Saunders. (Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 11-18)
Yankeelov TE, Peterson TE, Abramson RG, et al. Simultaneous PET–MRI in oncology: a solution looking for a problem? Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30(9), 1342-1356.
Liu B, Ramalho M, AlObaidy M, et al. Gastrointestinal imaging-practical magnetic resonance imaging approach. World J Radiol, 2014;6(8), 544.
Giganti F, Tang L, & Baba H. Gastric cancer and imaging biomarkers: Part 1–a critical review of DW-MRI and CE-MDCT findings. Eur Radiol, 2019;29(4), 1743-1753.
Tang L, Wang XJ, Baba H, et al. Gastric cancer and image-derived quantitative parameters: Part 2—a critical review of DCE-MRI and 18 F-FDG PET/CT findings. Eur Radiol 2020;30(1), 247-260.
Paspulati RM, & Gupta A. PET/MR imaging in cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. PET Clin, 2016;11(4), 403-423.
Liu Y, Zheng D, Liu JJ, et al. Comparing PET/MRI with PET/CT for pretreatment staging of gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2019;2019.
