Incidental 18F-FDG uptake in the colon: value of contrast-enhanced CT correlation with colonoscopic findings.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of morphological information derived from contrast-enhanced CT in the characterization of incidental focal colonic uptake in 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. METHODS: A total of 125 patients (female: n = 53, male: n = 72) that underwent colonoscopy secondary to contrast-enhanced, full-dose PET/CT without special bowel preparation were included in this retrospective study. PET/CT examinations were assessed for focal colonic tracer uptake in comparison with the background. Focal tracer uptake was correlated with morphological changes of the colonic wall in the contrast-enhanced CT images. Colonoscopy reports were evaluated for benign, inflammatory, polypoid, precancerous, and cancerous lesions verified by histopathology, serving as a reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for detection of therapeutic relevant findings were calculated for (a) sole focal tracer uptake and (b) focal tracer uptake with correlating CT findings in contrast-enhanced CT. RESULTS: In 38.4% (48/125) of the patients, a focal 18F-FDG uptake was observed within 67 lesions. Malignant lesions were endoscopically and histopathologically diagnosed in eleven patients, and nine of these were detected by focal 18F-FDG uptake. A total of 34 lesions with impact on short- or long-term patient management (either being pre- or malignant) were detected. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for sole 18F-FDG uptake for this combined group were 54%, 69%, 29%, 85%, and 65%. Corresponding results for focal 18F-FDG uptake with correlating CT findings were 38%, 90%, 50%, 86%, and 80%. This resulted in a statistically significant difference for diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.0001) CONCLUSION: By analyzing additional morphological changes in contrast-enhanced CT imaging, the specificity of focal colonic 18F-FDG uptake for precancerous and cancerous lesions can be increased but leads to a considerate loss of sensitivity. Therefore, every focal colonic uptake should be followed up by colonoscopy.

Autologous Breast Reconstruction with SIEA Flaps: An Alternative in Selected Cases.

BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap has been shown to be a reliable option for autologous breast reconstruction. A further refinement in the transfer of lower abdominal tissue is the superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap that does not require any incision of the rectus abdominis fascia or muscle and is superior regarding donor-site morbidity. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a retrospective study to assess reliability and outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction using SIEA flaps. METHODS: We performed autologous breast reconstruction in 1708 patients at our department between 2009 and 2018. Of those, 28 patients that underwent breast reconstruction using a SIEA flap were included for a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Given an overall flap loss rate of 1.8%, we observed total flap necrosis following a SIEA flap in four patients (13%). All cases were secondary to arterial thrombosis. We further recognized a significant correlation between flap failure and a history of spontaneous deep vein thrombosis (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant relationship between flap failure and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2;p = 0.9) or flap failure and a history of abdominal operations (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The SIEA flap provides a reasonable option for autologous breast reconstruction with the great advantage of minimal donor-site morbidity. Nevertheless, its use should be preserved to selected cases with favorable anatomy. We therefore recommend proper patient selection based on preoperative computed tomography angiography, intraoperative clinical evaluation and history of hypercoagulable state. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.