OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the value of CT or MRI (CT/MRI) and PET in the management of vulvar malignancies. METHODS: Abdominal and pelvic CT/MRI and whole-body (18) F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET or PET/CT (collectively designated PET hereafter) were performed. Lesion status was determined by the pathological findings or clinical follow-up. The diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The clinical impact of PET was determined on a per scan basis. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled, and 38 PET examinations were performed. CT/MRI and PET studies were used for primary staging (n = 17), monitoring the response (n = 7) and restaging after recurrence (n = 14). In primary staging, there was no significant difference between CT/MRI and PET in detecting metastatic inguinal lymph nodes (ILN). CT/MRI was significantly more efficacious than PET in detecting pelvic lymph node (PLN) or distant metastasis (p = 0.007 by ROC per patient basis). PET findings resulted in two positive impacts and one negative impact for both primary staging and restaging. CONCLUSIONS: False-positive PLN or distant metastasis PET findings are not uncommon, and hence should be interpreted with caution. PET can be supportive when metastatic ILN/PLN or distant metastasis is suspected on CT/MRI. KEY POINTS: • False-positive metastatic PLN or distant metastasis PET findings are not uncommon. • CT/MRI has value in the management of vulvar malignancies. • PET can be supportive when metastasis is suspected by CT/MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the value of CT or MRI (CT/MRI) and PET in the management of vulvar malignancies. METHODS: Abdominal and pelvic CT/MRI and whole-body (18) F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET or PET/CT (collectively designated PET hereafter) were performed. Lesion status was determined by the pathological findings or clinical follow-up. The diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The clinical impact of PET was determined on a per scan basis. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled, and 38 PET examinations were performed. CT/MRI and PET studies were used for primary staging (n = 17), monitoring the response (n = 7) and restaging after recurrence (n = 14). In primary staging, there was no significant difference between CT/MRI and PET in detecting metastatic inguinal lymph nodes (ILN). CT/MRI was significantly more efficacious than PET in detecting pelvic lymph node (PLN) or distant metastasis (p = 0.007 by ROC per patient basis). PET findings resulted in two positive impacts and one negative impact for both primary staging and restaging. CONCLUSIONS: False-positive PLN or distant metastasis PET findings are not uncommon, and hence should be interpreted with caution. PET can be supportive when metastatic ILN/PLN or distant metastasis is suspected on CT/MRI. KEY POINTS: • False-positive metastatic PLN or distant metastasis PET findings are not uncommon. • CT/MRI has value in the management of vulvar malignancies. • PET can be supportive when metastasis is suspected by CT/MRI.
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Susanne Ziegler; Bjoern W Jakoby; Jens-Christoph Georgi; Daniel H Paulus; Harald H Quick Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Patricia L Judson; Elizabeth B Habermann; Nancy N Baxter; Sara B Durham; Beth A Virnig Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: David E Cohn; Farrokh Dehdashti; Randall K Gibb; David G Mutch; Janet S Rader; Barry A Siegel; Thomas J Herzog Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Johannes Grueneisen; Karsten Beiderwellen; Philipp Heusch; Paul Buderath; Bahriye Aktas; Marcel Gratz; Michael Forsting; Thomas Lauenstein; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N L Robertson; H Hricak; Y Sonoda; R E Sosa; M Benz; G Lyons; N R Abu-Rustum; E Sala; H A Vargas Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vittoria Rufini; Giorgia Garganese; Francesco P Ieria; Tina Pasciuto; Simona M Fragomeni; Benedetta Gui; Anita Florit; Frediano Inzani; Gian Franco Zannoni; Giovanni Scambia; Alessandro Giordano; Angela Collarino Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 9.236