Assessment of incidental focal colorectal uptake by analysis of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters

BACKGROUND Colon and rectal cancers are among the top five cancers worldwide in terms of their incidence and mortality rates. As the treatment options for cure include surgery even in specific advanced-stage cases, the early detection of lesions is important for applying active treatment methods. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18 FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is an established imaging study for many types of cancers; however, physiologic uptake in the gastrointestinal tract is a frequent finding and may interfere with lesion identification. Nevertheless, as unexpectedly observed focal colorectal F-18 FDG uptake may harbor malignant lesions, further examination must not be avoided. AIM To assess the clinical implications of unexpected focal colorectal F-18 FDG uptake by analyzing FDG PET parameters. METHODS A total of 15143 F-18 FDG PET/CT scans performed at our hospital between January 2016 and September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed to identify incidentally observed focal colorectal FDG uptake. Finally, 83 regions showing focal colorectal FDG uptake with final histopathological reports from 80 patients (45 men and 35 women with mean ages of 66.9 & PLUSMN; 10.7 years and 63.7 & PLUSMN; 15.3 years, respectively) were eligible for inclusion in the present study. Each focal hypermetabolic colorectal region was classified as malignant, premalignant, or benign according to the histopathological report. PET parameters such as maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVpeak), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), mean SUV of the metabolic tumor volume (mSUVmtv), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured or calculated for the corresponding hypermetabolic regions. Parametric and non-parametric statistical comparisons of these parameters were performed among the three groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to identify cut-off values. RESULTS The detection rate of incidental focal colorectal uptake was 0.53% (80/15,143). Of the 83 regions with unexpected focal colorectal hypermetabolism, 28.9% (24/83) were malignant, 32.5% (27/83) were premalignant, and 38.6% (32/83) were benign. Overall, 61.4% of the regions had malignant or premalignant lesions. SUVmax, SUVpeak, and mSUVmtv differentiated malignant and/or premalignant lesions from benign lesions with statistical significance (P < 0.05). mSUVmtv3.5 differentiated malignant from benign lesions, with the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.792 and a cut-off of 4.9. SUVmax showed the largest AUC of 0.758 with a cut-off value of 7.5 for distinguishing between premalignant and benign lesions. Overall, SUVmax with a cut-off value of 7.6 (AUC: 0.770, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.668-0.872; sensitivity, 0.686; specificity, 0.688) was a superior parameter for distinguishing between malignant/premalignant and benign lesions or physiologic uptake. No parameters differentiated malignant from premalignant lesions. Moderate or weak positive correlations were observed between the long diameter of the malignant lesions and PET parameters such as SUVpeak and some mSUVmtv. CONCLUSION Approximately two-thirds (61.4%) of incidental focal hypermetabolic colorectal regions were malignant/premalignant lesions, for which SUVmax was an independent diagnostic parameter. Unexpected suspicious focal colorectal FDG uptake should not be avoided and consideration for further evaluation is strongly recommended not to miss the two-thirds.