Comparison of 18FDG-PET/CT and conventional follow-up methods in colorectal cancer: A randomised prospective study
Rattachement africain : fr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: A surveillance program was performed in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after surgery, to diagnose asymptomatic recurrence. AIMS: To assess whether 18-FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) improved the detection of recurrence during a 3-year follow-up. METHODS: A multicentre, two-arm randomised prospective trial comparing different 36-month follow-up strategies. Complete colonoscopy was performed at baseline and after 3 years and clinical exams with imaging every 3 months. The conventional arm (A) received carcinoembryonic antigen, liver echography, and alternated between lung radiography and computed tomography (CT) scans. The experimental arm (B) received PET/CT. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients with colon (79.4%) or rectal cancer (20.6%), stages II (48.2%) or III (50.8%), were enroled in this study. At 36 months, intention-to-treat analysis revealed recurrence in 31 (17.2%) patients in arm A and 47 (25.4%) in arm B (p = 0.063). At 3 years, 7 of 31 relapses (22.5%) in arm A were surgically treated with curative intent, compared to 17 of 47 (36.2%) in arm B (p = 0.25). The rates of recurrence and new cancers were higher in arm B than arm A (p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT follow-up every 6 months did not increase the rate of recurrence at 3 years or the rate of surgically treated recurrence compared with conventional follow-up.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparison of 18FDG-PET/CT and conventional follow-up methods in colorectal cancer: A randomised prospective study
- Date Crossref
- 01/02/2021
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.