PURPOSE: To evaluate low-dose non-enhanced CT (ldCT) and full-dose contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) in integrated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT studies for restaging of uterine cancer. METHODS: A group of 100 women who had undergone treatment for uterine cervical (n=55) or endometrial cancer (n=45) underwent a conventional PET/CT scans with ldCT, and then a ceCT scan. Two observers retrospectively reviewed and interpreted the PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT images in consensus using a three-point grading scale (negative, equivocal, or positive) per patient and per lesion. Final diagnoses were obtained by histopathological examination, or clinical follow-up for at least 6 months. RESULTS: Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/ceCT were 90% (27/30), 97% (68/70) and 95% (95/100), respectively, whereas those of PET/ldCT were 83% (25/30), 94% (66/70) and 91% (91/100), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy did not significantly differ between two methods (McNemar test, p=0.48, p=0.48, and p=0.13, respectively). There were 52 sites of lesion recurrence: 12 pelvic lymph node (LN), 11 local recurrence, 8 peritoneum, 7 abdominal LN, 5 lung, 3 supraclavicular LN, 3 liver, 2 mediastinal LN, and 1 muscle and bone. The grading results for the 52 sites of recurrence were: negative 5, equivocal 0 and positive 47 for PET/ceCT, and negative 5, equivocal 4 and positive 43 for PET/ldCT, respectively. Four equivocal regions by PET/ldCT (local recurrence, pelvic LN metastasis, liver metastasis and muscle metastasis) were correctly interpreted as positive by PET/ceCT. CONCLUSION: PET/ceCT is an accurate imaging modality for the assessment of uterine cancer recurrence. Its use reduces the frequency of equivocal interpretations.
PURPOSE: To evaluate low-dose non-enhanced CT (ldCT) and full-dose contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) in integrated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT studies for restaging of uterine cancer. METHODS: A group of 100 women who had undergone treatment for uterine cervical (n=55) or endometrial cancer (n=45) underwent a conventional PET/CT scans with ldCT, and then a ceCT scan. Two observers retrospectively reviewed and interpreted the PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT images in consensus using a three-point grading scale (negative, equivocal, or positive) per patient and per lesion. Final diagnoses were obtained by histopathological examination, or clinical follow-up for at least 6 months. RESULTS:Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/ceCT were 90% (27/30), 97% (68/70) and 95% (95/100), respectively, whereas those of PET/ldCT were 83% (25/30), 94% (66/70) and 91% (91/100), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy did not significantly differ between two methods (McNemar test, p=0.48, p=0.48, and p=0.13, respectively). There were 52 sites of lesion recurrence: 12 pelvic lymph node (LN), 11 local recurrence, 8 peritoneum, 7 abdominal LN, 5 lung, 3 supraclavicular LN, 3 liver, 2 mediastinal LN, and 1 muscle and bone. The grading results for the 52 sites of recurrence were: negative 5, equivocal 0 and positive 47 for PET/ceCT, and negative 5, equivocal 4 and positive 43 for PET/ldCT, respectively. Four equivocal regions by PET/ldCT (local recurrence, pelvic LN metastasis, liver metastasis and muscle metastasis) were correctly interpreted as positive by PET/ceCT. CONCLUSION: PET/ceCT is an accurate imaging modality for the assessment of uterine cancer recurrence. Its use reduces the frequency of equivocal interpretations.
Authors: R Edward Coleman; Dominique Delbeke; Milton J Guiberteau; Peter S Conti; Henry D Royal; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Barry A Siegel; Michael F Federle; David W Townsend; Lincoln L Berland Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anna C Pfannenberg; Philip Aschoff; Klaus Brechtel; Mark Müller; Roland Bares; Frank Paulsen; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Godehard Friedel; Claus D Claussen; Susanne M Eschmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Niklaus G Schaefer; Thomas F Hany; Christian Taverna; Burkhardt Seifert; Katrin D M Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alessandra Musto; Gaia Grassetto; Maria Cristina Marzola; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Anna Margherita Maffione; Lucia Rampin; David Fuster; Francesco Giammarile; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.759