G Mangili1, M Picchio2, S Sironi3,4, R Viganò1, E Rabaiotti1, D Bornaghi1, V Bettinardi2, C Crivellaro3, C Messa3,5,6, F Fazio7,8,9. 1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. 3. University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 6. IBFM-CNR, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. fazio.ferruccio@hsr.it. 8. University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. fazio.ferruccio@hsr.it. 9. IBFM-CNR, Milan, Italy. fazio.ferruccio@hsr.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare CT with PET/CT results in patients with suspected ovarian cancer recurrence and to assess the impact of the PET/CT findings on their clinical management. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients with suspected ovarian cancer recurrence were retrospectively included in the study. Abdominal contrast-enhanced CT and PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG, in addition to conventional follow-up, were performed in all 32 patients. After the comparison between CT and PET/CT results, based on clinical reports, changes in the clinical management of patients (intermodality changes) due to PET/CT information were analysed. RESULTS: Twenty of the 32 patients were positive at CT (62.5%) versus 29 (90.6%) at PET/CT. Intermodality changes in management, i.e. use of a different treatment modality, after PET/CT examination were indicated in 14/32 (44%) patients. In particular, before PET/CT study, the planned management was as follows: wait-and-see in 7/32 (22%), further instrumental examinations in 4/32 (12%), chemotherapy in 10/32 (31%), diagnostic surgical treatment in 6/32 (19%) and surgical treatment in the remaining 5/32 (16%). After PET/CT study, wait-and-see was indicated in 1/32 (3%), further instrumental examinations in 7/32 (22%), chemotherapy in 16/32 (50%), diagnostic surgical treatment in 2/32 (6%) and surgical treatment in the remaining 6/32 (19%). CONCLUSION: Integrated PET/CT could detect tumour relapse in a higher percentage of patients than could CT. A change in the clinical management was observed in 44% of cases when PET/CT information was added to conventional follow-up findings.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare CT with PET/CT results in patients with suspected ovarian cancer recurrence and to assess the impact of the PET/CT findings on their clinical management. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients with suspected ovarian cancer recurrence were retrospectively included in the study. Abdominal contrast-enhanced CT and PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG, in addition to conventional follow-up, were performed in all 32 patients. After the comparison between CT and PET/CT results, based on clinical reports, changes in the clinical management of patients (intermodality changes) due to PET/CT information were analysed. RESULTS: Twenty of the 32 patients were positive at CT (62.5%) versus 29 (90.6%) at PET/CT. Intermodality changes in management, i.e. use of a different treatment modality, after PET/CT examination were indicated in 14/32 (44%) patients. In particular, before PET/CT study, the planned management was as follows: wait-and-see in 7/32 (22%), further instrumental examinations in 4/32 (12%), chemotherapy in 10/32 (31%), diagnostic surgical treatment in 6/32 (19%) and surgical treatment in the remaining 5/32 (16%). After PET/CT study, wait-and-see was indicated in 1/32 (3%), further instrumental examinations in 7/32 (22%), chemotherapy in 16/32 (50%), diagnostic surgical treatment in 2/32 (6%) and surgical treatment in the remaining 6/32 (19%). CONCLUSION: Integrated PET/CT could detect tumour relapse in a higher percentage of patients than could CT. A change in the clinical management was observed in 44% of cases when PET/CT information was added to conventional follow-up findings.
Authors: V Kalff; R J Hicks; M P MacManus; D S Binns; A F McKenzie; R E Ware; A Hogg; D L Ball Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A B Kurtz; J V Tsimikas; C M Tempany; U M Hamper; P H Arger; R L Bree; R J Wechsler; I R Francis; J E Kuhlman; E S Siegelman; D G Mitchell; S G Silverman; D L Brown; S Sheth; B G Coleman; J H Ellis; R J Kurman; D J Caudry; B J McNeil Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M P MacManus; R J Hicks; J P Matthews; A Hogg; A F McKenzie; A Wirth; R E Ware; D L Ball Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Paul Verboom; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Gerrit J J Teule Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-04-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G J Herder; H Van Tinteren; E F Comans; O S Hoekstra; G J Teule; P E Postmus; U Joshi; E F Smit Journal: Thorax Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Andrei H Iagaru; Erik S Mittra; Iain Ross McDougall; Andrew Quon; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Laura Evangelista; Maurizia Dalla Palma; Michele Gregianin; Margherita Nardin; Anna Roma; Maria Ornella Nicoletto; Giovanni Battista Nardelli; Vittorina Zagonel Journal: J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc Date: 2015-08-06