PURPOSE: Conformal treatment of para-aortic lymph nodes (PAN) in cervical cancer allows dose escalation and reduces normal tissue toxicity. Currently, data documenting the precise location of involved PAN are lacking. We define the spatial distribution of this high-risk nodal volume by analyzing fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid lymph nodes (LNs) on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 72 PANs on pretreatment PET/CT of 30 patients with newly diagnosed stage IB-IVA cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation. LNs were classified as left-lateral para-aortic (LPA), aortocaval (AC), or right paracaval (RPC). Distances from the LN center to the closest vessel and adjacent vertebral body were calculated. Using deformable image registration, nodes were mapped to a template computed tomogram to provide a visual impression of nodal frequencies and anatomic distribution. RESULTS: We identified 72 PET-positive para-aortic lymph nodes (37 LPA, 32 AC, 3 RPC). All RPC lymph nodes were in the inferior third of the para-aortic region. The mean distance from aorta for all lymph nodes was 8.3 mm (range, 3-17 mm), and from the inferior vena cava was 5.6 mm (range, 2-10 mm). Of the 72 lymph nodes, 60% were in the inferior third, 36% were in the middle third, and 4% were in the upper third of the para-aortic region. In all, 29 of 30 patients also had FDG-avid pelvic lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 96% of PET positive nodes were adjacent to the aorta; PET positive nodes to the right of the IVC were rare and were all located distally, within 3 cm of the aortic bifurcation. Our findings suggest that circumferential margins around the vessels do not accurately define the nodal region at risk. Instead, the anatomical extent of the nodal basin should be contoured on each axial image to provide optimal coverage of the para-aortic nodal compartment.
PURPOSE: Conformal treatment of para-aortic lymph nodes (PAN) in cervical cancer allows dose escalation and reduces normal tissue toxicity. Currently, data documenting the precise location of involved PAN are lacking. We define the spatial distribution of this high-risk nodal volume by analyzing fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid lymph nodes (LNs) on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 72 PANs on pretreatment PET/CT of 30 patients with newly diagnosed stage IB-IVA cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation. LNs were classified as left-lateral para-aortic (LPA), aortocaval (AC), or right paracaval (RPC). Distances from the LN center to the closest vessel and adjacent vertebral body were calculated. Using deformable image registration, nodes were mapped to a template computed tomogram to provide a visual impression of nodal frequencies and anatomic distribution. RESULTS: We identified 72 PET-positive para-aortic lymph nodes (37 LPA, 32 AC, 3 RPC). All RPC lymph nodes were in the inferior third of the para-aortic region. The mean distance from aorta for all lymph nodes was 8.3 mm (range, 3-17 mm), and from the inferior vena cava was 5.6 mm (range, 2-10 mm). Of the 72 lymph nodes, 60% were in the inferior third, 36% were in the middle third, and 4% were in the upper third of the para-aortic region. In all, 29 of 30 patients also had FDG-avid pelvic lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 96% of PET positive nodes were adjacent to the aorta; PET positive nodes to the right of the IVC were rare and were all located distally, within 3 cm of the aortic bifurcation. Our findings suggest that circumferential margins around the vessels do not accurately define the nodal region at risk. Instead, the anatomical extent of the nodal basin should be contoured on each axial image to provide optimal coverage of the para-aortic nodal compartment.
Authors: P Benedetti-Panici; F Maneschi; G Scambia; S Greggi; G Cutillo; G D'Andrea; C Rabitti; F Coronetta; A Capelli; S Mancuso Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: M J Reinhardt; C Ehritt-Braun; D Vogelgesang; C Ihling; S Högerle; M Mix; E Moser; T M Krause Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: He Wang; Lei Dong; Jennifer O'Daniel; Radhe Mohan; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Deborah A Kuban; Mark Bonnen; Joe Y Chang; Rex Cheung Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Patricia J Eifel; Kathryn Winter; Mitchell Morris; Charles Levenback; Perry W Grigsby; Jay Cooper; Marvin Rotman; David Gershenson; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William Small; Walter R Bosch; Mathew M Harkenrider; Jonathan B Strauss; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; Kevin V Albuquerque; Sushil Beriwal; Carien L Creutzberg; Patricia J Eifel; Beth A Erickson; Anthony W Fyles; Courtney L Hentz; Anuja Jhingran; Ann H Klopp; Charles A Kunos; Loren K Mell; Lorraine Portelance; Melanie E Powell; Akila N Viswanathan; Joseph H Yacoub; Catheryn M Yashar; Kathryn A Winter; David K Gaffney Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Judit A Adam; Annika Loft; Cyrus Chargari; Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Elisabeth Kidd; Heiko Schöder; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Wouter V Vogel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dunhuang Wang; Weiping Wang; Xiaoliang Liu; Kang Ren; Yongguang Liang; Qizhen Zhu; Fuquan Zhang; Ke Hu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 4.452