Abstract
Rationale and Objectives The use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in assessing inflammatory diseases has shown significant promise. Uptake patterns in perianal fistulas, which may be an incidental finding on PET/CT, have not been purposefully studied. Our aim was to compare FDG uptake of perianal fistulas to that of the liver and anal canal in patients who underwent PET/CT for hematologic/oncologic diagnosis or staging.
Materials and Methods We retrospectively identified patients who underwent FDG- PET/CT imaging between January 2011 and May 2023, where the report described a perianal fistula or abscess. PET/CTs of patients included in the study were retrospectively analyzed to record the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the fistula, abscess, anal canal, rectum, and liver. Fistula-to-liver and Fistula-to-anus SUVmax ratios were calculated. We statistically compared FDG activity among the fistula, liver, and anal canal. We also assessed FDG activity in patients with vs. without anorectal cancer, as well as across different St. James fistula grades.
Results The study included 24 patients with identifiable fistulas. Fistula SUVmax (mean=10.8±5.28) was significantly higher than both the liver (mean=3.09±0.584, p<0.0001) and the anal canal (mean=5.98± 2.63, p=0.0005). Abscess fistula SUVmax was 15.8 ± 4.91. St. James grade 1 fistulas had significantly lower SUVmax compared to grades 2 and 4 (p= 0.0224 and p=0.0295 respectively). No significant differences existed in SUVmax ratios between anorectal and non-anorectal cancer groups.
Conclusion Perianal fistulas have increased FDG avidity with fistula SUVmax values that are significantly higher than the anal canal.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Local IRB approval number: 202204095
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
