N L Robertson1, H Hricak2, Y Sonoda3, R E Sosa2, M Benz2, G Lyons2, N R Abu-Rustum3, E Sala2, H A Vargas2. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Av, room C278, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: Robertn1@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Av, room C278, New York, NY 10065, USA. 3. Gynecologic Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes in prognostic impression and patient management following PET/CT in patients with vulvar and vaginal carcinoma; and to compare PET/CT findings with those of conventional imaging modalities. METHODS: We summarized prospectively and retrospectively collected data for 50 consecutive patients from our institution that enrolled in the National Oncologic PET Registry and underwent FDG-PET/CT for a suspected or known primary or recurrent vulvar/vaginal cancer. RESULTS: 54/83 (65%) studies included had a diagnosis of vulvar cancer, and the remaining 29/83 (35%), a diagnosis of vaginal cancer. Following FDG-PET/CT, the physician's prognostic impression changed in 51% of cases. A change in patient management, defined as a change to/from a non-interventional strategy (observation or additional imaging), to/from an interventional strategy (biopsy or treatment), was documented in 36% of studies. The electronic records demonstrated that 95% of the management strategies recorded in the physician questionnaires were implemented as planned. MRI and/or CT were performed within one month of the FDG-PET/CT in 20/83 (24%) and 28/83 (34%) cases, respectively. FDG-PET/CT detected nodes suspicious for metastases on 29/83 (35%) studies performed. MRI and CT detected positive nodes on 6 and 11 studies respectively. Distant metastases were identified in 10 cases imaged with FDG-PET and 5 cases that had additional conventional CT imaging. All suspicious lesions seen on CT were positively identified on PET/CT. In 4 cases, an abnormality identified on PET/CT, was not seen on diagnostic CT. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET/CT may play an important role in the management of vulvar and vaginal carcinoma.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes in prognostic impression and patient management following PET/CT in patients with vulvar and vaginal carcinoma; and to compare PET/CT findings with those of conventional imaging modalities. METHODS: We summarized prospectively and retrospectively collected data for 50 consecutive patients from our institution that enrolled in the National Oncologic PET Registry and underwent FDG-PET/CT for a suspected or known primary or recurrent vulvar/vaginal cancer. RESULTS: 54/83 (65%) studies included had a diagnosis of vulvar cancer, and the remaining 29/83 (35%), a diagnosis of vaginal cancer. Following FDG-PET/CT, the physician's prognostic impression changed in 51% of cases. A change in patient management, defined as a change to/from a non-interventional strategy (observation or additional imaging), to/from an interventional strategy (biopsy or treatment), was documented in 36% of studies. The electronic records demonstrated that 95% of the management strategies recorded in the physician questionnaires were implemented as planned. MRI and/or CT were performed within one month of the FDG-PET/CT in 20/83 (24%) and 28/83 (34%) cases, respectively. FDG-PET/CT detected nodes suspicious for metastases on 29/83 (35%) studies performed. MRI and CT detected positive nodes on 6 and 11 studies respectively. Distant metastases were identified in 10 cases imaged with FDG-PET and 5 cases that had additional conventional CT imaging. All suspicious lesions seen on CT were positively identified on PET/CT. In 4 cases, an abnormality identified on PET/CT, was not seen on diagnostic CT. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET/CT may play an important role in the management of vulvar and vaginal carcinoma.
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: Wayne T Lamoreaux; Perry W Grigsby; Farrokh Dehdashti; Imran Zoberi; Matthew A Powell; Randall K Gibb; Janet S Rader; David G Mutch; Barry A Siegel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: V Peiró; L Chiva; A González; R Bratos; S Alonso; R Márquez; N Carballo; J C Alonso-Farto Journal: Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Wui-Jin Koh; Benjamin E Greer; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Sachin M Apte; Susana M Campos; John Chan; Kathleen R Cho; David Cohn; Marta Ann Crispens; Nefertiti DuPont; Patricia J Eifel; David K Gaffney; Robert L Giuntoli; Ernest Han; Warner K Huh; John R Lurain; Lainie Martin; Mark A Morgan; David Mutch; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; William Small; Nelson Teng; Todd Tillmanns; Fidel A Valea; Nicole R McMillian; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: G J Herder; H Van Tinteren; E F Comans; O S Hoekstra; G J Teule; P E Postmus; U Joshi; E F Smit Journal: Thorax Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Ahmed Ebada Salem; Gabriel C Fine; Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 6.575
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