OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental prognostic value of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-body F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) findings compared with clinical-histopathologic factors in patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer. METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study of 114 patients (median age, 40.6 years) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I-IVB cervical cancer who underwent pretreatment MRI and PET/CT. All scans were reviewed for locoregional tumor extent, pelvic or/and para-aortic lymphadenopathy, and distant metastases. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to evaluate associations between clinical-histopathologic factors, imaging findings, and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariate models were built using independent predictors for PFS. Harrell C was used to measure concordance (C index). RESULTS: Forty patients progressed within a median time of 10.4 months (range, 0.4-40.3 months). At univariate analysis, age, FIGO stage, tumor histology, tumor grade, and all MRI and PET/CT features were significantly associated with PFS (P < 0.0001 to P = 0.0474). A multivariate model including clinical and imaging parameters (parametrial invasion on MRI and para-aortic lymphadenopathy/distant metastases on PET/CT) had significantly higher concordance for predicting PFS than a model including clinical parameters only (C index: 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87] vs 0.68 [95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.78]; P < 0.001). The comparison of C indices for the combined clinical and imaging model approached significance when compared with a FIGO stage model (C index: 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87] vs 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.82]; P = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer, a prognostic model including combined MRI and PET/CT findings provides information that complements clinical and histopathologic factors.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental prognostic value of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-body F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) findings compared with clinical-histopathologic factors in patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer. METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study of 114 patients (median age, 40.6 years) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I-IVB cervical cancer who underwent pretreatment MRI and PET/CT. All scans were reviewed for locoregional tumor extent, pelvic or/and para-aortic lymphadenopathy, and distant metastases. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to evaluate associations between clinical-histopathologic factors, imaging findings, and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariate models were built using independent predictors for PFS. Harrell C was used to measure concordance (C index). RESULTS: Forty patients progressed within a median time of 10.4 months (range, 0.4-40.3 months). At univariate analysis, age, FIGO stage, tumor histology, tumor grade, and all MRI and PET/CT features were significantly associated with PFS (P < 0.0001 to P = 0.0474). A multivariate model including clinical and imaging parameters (parametrial invasion on MRI and para-aortic lymphadenopathy/distant metastases on PET/CT) had significantly higher concordance for predicting PFS than a model including clinical parameters only (C index: 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87] vs 0.68 [95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.78]; P < 0.001). The comparison of C indices for the combined clinical and imaging model approached significance when compared with a FIGO stage model (C index: 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87] vs 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.82]; P = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer, a prognostic model including combined MRI and PET/CT findings provides information that complements clinical and histopathologic factors.
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Constantine Gatsonis; Dennis S Chi; Marco A Amendola; Kathy Brandt; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Koelliker; Evan S Siegelman; Jeffrey J Brown; Robert B McGhee; Revathy Iyer; Kenneth M Vitellas; Bradley Snyder; Harry J Long; James V Fiorica; Donald G Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maura Miccò; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Irene A Burger; Marisa A Kollmeier; Debra A Goldman; Kay J Park; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Hedvig Hricak; Evis Sala Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-03-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Garry Choy; Marcela G del Carmen; G Scott Gazelle; Anthony H Russell; Susanna I Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Charlotte C Sun; Kathleen M Schmeler; Michael T Deavers; Ricardo Dos Reis; Charles F Levenback; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: S Polterauer; C Grimm; G Hofstetter; N Concin; C Natter; A Sturdza; R Pötter; C Marth; A Reinthaller; G Heinze Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: John M Floberg; Kathryn J Fowler; Dominique Fuser; Todd A DeWees; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Richard L Wahl; Julie K Schwarz; Perry W Grigsby Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Soo Young Jeong; Hyea Park; Myeong Seon Kim; Jun Hyeok Kang; E Sun Paik; Yoo-Young Lee; Tae Joong Kim; Jeong Won Lee; Byoung-Gie Kim; Duk Soo Bae; Chel Hun Choi Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.679