Table 1.
General characteristics of the study participants (n = 1109).
Table 2.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of FDG PET/CT for the detection of different colorectal neoplasms.
Figure 1.
One ulcerated cancer with well-demarcated borders (4.0 cm in size) was identified by colonoscopy in the ascending colon.
The results of colonoscopy were taken as the gold standard. FDG PET/CT imaging revealed an increased FDG uptake in a compatible location (arrow); therefore, the FDG PET/CT findings were considered as true-positive.
Figure 2.
Representative cases of false-negative (panel A) and false-positive (panel B) FDG PET/CT findings.
(A) One polypoid cancer (1.5 cm in size) was identified by colonoscopy in the sigmoid colon. FDG PET/CT scans revealed an increased FDG uptake in the luminal air (arrowhead). This result was erroneously interpreted as a negative finding because of misregistration. (B) Colonoscopy revealed a normal mucosa. However, FDG PET/CT showed an increased FDG uptake in the sigmoid colon (arrow), which was erroneously interpreted as a positive result.
Table 3.
Sensitivity of FDG-PET for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms according to different clinicopathological characteristics (n = 38).