Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Surg. 2012 Mar 30;204(2):232–241. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.07.025

Table 4.

Publications on Pancreatic Cancer and PET

Pancreatic cancer
Author Year N Results Conclusion
Sendler 2000 42 Sensitivity of 71% compared to CT and US (74% and 56%) but identified 7 out of 8 false negative lesions on CT Comparable to CT for detecting pancreatic cancer
Lemke 2004 104 Combined PET/CT sensitivity of 89% compared to CT alone (77%) and PET alone (84%). Sensitivity of 68% compared to CT (48%) in detecting infiltration of adjacent tissue PET/CT comparable to CT or PET alone in detecting cancer but showed superiority in identifying infiltration
Heinrich 2005 59 Sensitivity of 89% compared to CT (93%) in detecting PCA Comparable sensitivity to CT in diagnosing pancreatic cancer
Bang 2006 102 Sensitivity of 97% compared to CT (80%) in identifying PCA Superior to CT in diagnosing pancreatic cancer
Schick 2008 27 Sensitivity of 89% compared to EUS (81%) and ERCP (87%) in identifying PCA Comparable sensitivity in detecting pancreatic lesions with EUS and ERCP
Kauhanen 2009 38 Sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 94% compared to CT (85%, 67%) and MRI (85%, 72%) in identifying PCA. Sensitivity of 85% in determining benign from malignant biliary strictures Comparable to CT and MRI in detecting pancreatic lesions and better in determining malignant biliary strictures
Metastasis
Lemke 2004 104 PET/CT sensitivity of 32% compared to CT and PET alone (25%). Identified 5 additional metastases not previously seen Good for detecting unidentified metastatic lesions
Heinrich 2005 59 Identified 13 out of 16 patients with metastases of which 5 were not seen on CT, while CT only identified 9 patients; PET only identified 3 out of 14 proven regional lymph node metastases Better than CT in identifying distant metastases but poor in identifying regional disease
Bang 2006 102 Identified 17 new distant metastases in 72 cases of resectable disease, and changed pre-operative stage in 27% of patients Better at detecting metastatic disease compared to CT
Strobel 2008 50 Enhanced PET/CT sensitivity of 96% compared PET alone and unenhanced PET/CT in determining resectability Combined PET/CT is a feasible tool for identifying distant metastases, vascular infiltration, and local invasion
Kauhanen 2009 38 Sensitivity of 88% compared to CT and MRI in identifying metastases, affecting treatment in 26% of patients Useful in detecting metastatic disease not identified on other imaging modalities
Recurrence/Response to treatment
Bang 2006 102 Identified chemoradiation response in 5 out of 15 patients on pre- and post-treatment PET compared to none on CT Better than CT in identifying tumor response to treatment
Sperti 2010 72 Identified 61 out of 63 patients with tumor relapse while CT identified only 35 patients Better than CT in identifying tumor recurrence after pancreatic resection
Identifying cystic neoplasms
Sperti 2001 56 Sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 97% compared to CT and CA19-9 (65% and 87%) in identifying malignant cystic neoplasms Better than CT/CA 19-9 for identifying malignant cystic neoplasms
Sperti 2007 71 Sensitivity of 92% compared to CT and MRI (58% and 82%) in detecting IPMN Sensitivity of 92% compared to 58% and 82% for CT and MRI in detecting IPMN Better than CT and MRI for detecting IPMN

PCA: Pancreatic cancer; IPMN: intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms; PET: Positron emission tomography; US: Ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; RFA: Radio frequency ablation; FDG: Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose; SUV: Standardized uptake value; Sens: Sensitivity; Spec: Specificity