PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MRI and PET/CT for staging and re-staging advanced gynaecological cancer patients as well as identify the potential benefits of each method in such a population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with suspicious or proven advanced gynaecological cancer (12 ovarian, seven cervical, one vulvar and four endometrial tumours, one uterine metastasis, and one primary peritoneal cancer) underwent whole-body imaging with a sequential trimodality PET/CT/MR system. Images were analysed regarding primary tumour detection and delineation, loco-regional lymph node staging, and abdominal/extra-abdominal distant metastasis detection (last only by PET/CT). RESULTS: Eighteen (69.2 %) patients underwent PET/MRI for primary staging and eight patients (30.8 %) for re-staging their gynaecological malignancies. For primary tumour delineation, PET/MRI accuracy was statistically superior to PET/CT (p < 0.001). Among the different types of cancer, PET/MRI presented better tumour delineation mainly for cervical (6/7) and endometrial (2/3) cancers. PET/MRI for local evaluation as well as PET/CT for extra-abdominal metastases had therapeutic consequences in three and one patients, respectively. PET/CT detected 12 extra-abdominal distant metastases in 26 patients. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI is superior to PET/CT for primary tumour delineation. No differences were found in detection of regional lymph node involvement and abdominal metastases detection. KEY POINTS: • PET/MRI is superior to PET/CT for primary tumour delineation • PET/CT represents a reliable tool to detect extra-abdominal distant metastasis • PET/MRI might be the preferred imaging modality for staging cervical and endometrial tumours • Whole-body staging for detection and evaluation of extra-abdominal metastases is mandatory.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MRI and PET/CT for staging and re-staging advanced gynaecological cancerpatients as well as identify the potential benefits of each method in such a population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with suspicious or proven advanced gynaecological cancer (12 ovarian, seven cervical, one vulvar and four endometrial tumours, one uterine metastasis, and one primary peritoneal cancer) underwent whole-body imaging with a sequential trimodality PET/CT/MR system. Images were analysed regarding primary tumour detection and delineation, loco-regional lymph node staging, and abdominal/extra-abdominal distant metastasis detection (last only by PET/CT). RESULTS: Eighteen (69.2 %) patients underwent PET/MRI for primary staging and eight patients (30.8 %) for re-staging their gynaecological malignancies. For primary tumour delineation, PET/MRI accuracy was statistically superior to PET/CT (p < 0.001). Among the different types of cancer, PET/MRI presented better tumour delineation mainly for cervical (6/7) and endometrial (2/3) cancers. PET/MRI for local evaluation as well as PET/CT for extra-abdominal metastases had therapeutic consequences in three and one patients, respectively. PET/CT detected 12 extra-abdominal distant metastases in 26 patients. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI is superior to PET/CT for primary tumour delineation. No differences were found in detection of regional lymph node involvement and abdominal metastases detection. KEY POINTS: • PET/MRI is superior to PET/CT for primary tumour delineation • PET/CT represents a reliable tool to detect extra-abdominal distant metastasis • PET/MRI might be the preferred imaging modality for staging cervical and endometrial tumours • Whole-body staging for detection and evaluation of extra-abdominal metastases is mandatory.
Authors: Valentin Kolev; Svetlana Mironov; Oleg Mironov; Nicole Ishill; Chaya S Moskowitz; Ginger J Gardner; Douglas A Levine; Hedvig Hricak; Richard R Barakat; Dennis S Chi Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Felix Pierre Kuhn; Florian Wiesinger; Gaspar Delso; Gustav von Schulthess Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Johanna Hynninen; Annika Auranen; Olli Carpén; Kirsti Dean; Marko Seppänen; Jukka Kemppainen; Maija Lavonius; Irina Lisinen; Johanna Virtanen; Seija Grénman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Eun Ji Nam; Mi Jin Yun; Young Taik Oh; Jae Wook Kim; Jae Hoon Kim; Sunghoon Kim; Yong Wook Jung; Sang Wun Kim; Young Tae Kim Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Constantine Gatsonis; Fergus V Coakley; Bradley Snyder; Caroline Reinhold; Lawrence H Schwartz; Paula J Woodward; Harpreet K Pannu; Marco Amendola; Donald G Mitchell Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sinead H McEvoy; Stephanie Nougaret; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Christine O Menias; Fuki Shitano; Shinya Fujii; Ramon E Sosa; Joanna G Escalon; Evis Sala; Yulia Lakhman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-10