Literature DB >> 28051912

Utility of PET/CT to Evaluate Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Metastasis in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: Results of ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 Trial.

Mostafa Atri1, Zheng Zhang1, Farrokh Dehdashti1, Susanna I Lee1, Helga Marques1, Shamshad Ali1, Wui-Jin Koh1, Robert S Mannel1, Paul DiSilvestro1, Stephanie A King1, Michael Pearl1, XunClare Zhou1, Marie Plante1, Katherine M Moxley1, Michael Gold1.   

Abstract

Purpose To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with diagnostic contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in detecting lymph node (LN) metastasis in high-risk endometrial cancer. Materials and Methods This prospective multicenter HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and all participants gave written informed consent. Data were accrued between January 2010 and June 2013. Patients underwent PET/CT and pelvic and abdominal lymphadenectomy. Two hundred seven of 215 enrolled patients had PET/CT and pathologic examination results for the abdomen and pelvis. Mean patient age was 62.7 years ± 9.6 (standard deviation). Data in all 23 patients with a positive abdominal examination and in 26 randomly selected patients with a negative abdominal examination were used for this central reader study. Seven independent blinded readers reviewed diagnostic CT and PET/CT results in different sessions 1 month apart. Accuracy was calculated at the participant level, correlating abdominal (right and left para-aortic and common iliac) and pelvic (right and left external iliac and obturator) LN regions with pathologic results, respecting laterality. Reader-average sensitivities, specificities, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) of PET/CT and diagnostic CT were compared. Power calculation was for sensitivity and specificity in the abdomen. Results Sensitivities of PET/CT versus diagnostic CT for the detection of LN metastasis were 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57, 0.72) versus 0.50 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.58) (P = .01) in the abdomen and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.72) versus 0.48 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.56) (P = .004) in the pelvis. Corresponding specificities were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.92) versus 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.96) (P = .11) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.96) versus 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.94) (P = .27), and AUCs were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.89) versus 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.86) (P = .39) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.92) versus 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.84) (P = .02). Conclusion FDG PET/CT has satisfactory diagnostic accuracy in the detection of abdominal LN metastasis in high-risk endometrial cancer. Compared with diagnostic CT alone, addition of PET to diagnostic CT significantly increased sensitivity in both the abdomen and pelvis while maintaining high specificity. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28051912      PMCID: PMC5410939          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  26 in total

1.  Validity of positron emission tomography using fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the preoperative evaluation of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  R Suzuki; E Miyagi; N Takahashi; A Sukegawa; A Suzuki; I Koike; K Sugiura; N Okamoto; T Inoue; F Hirahara
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2007-03-02       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 2.  Diagnostic performance of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for detection of primary lesion and staging of endometrial cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Vahid Reza Dabbagh Kakhki; Sara Shahriari; Giorgio Treglia; Malihe Hasanzadeh; Seyed Rasoul Zakavi; Zohreh Yousefi; Sima Kadkhodayan; Ramin Sadeghi
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 3.  FDG PET-CT of gynecologic cancers: pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Hima B Prabhakar; Jessica J Kraeft; John O Schorge; James A Scott; Susanna I Lee
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2015-10

4.  Comparative performance of the 2009 international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics' staging system for uterine corpus cancer.

Authors:  Sharyn N Lewin; Thomas J Herzog; Nicanor I Barrena Medel; Israel Deutsch; William M Burke; Xuming Sun; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer.

Authors:  Neil S Horowitz; Farrokh Dehdashti; Thomas J Herzog; Janet S Rader; Matthew A Powell; Randal K Gibb; Perry W Grigsby; Barry A Siegel; David G Mutch
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Significance of true surgical pathologic staging: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

Authors:  W T Creasman; K DeGeest; P J DiSaia; R J Zaino
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer.

Authors:  Jeong-Yeol Park; Eyu Nyong Kim; Dae-Yeon Kim; Dae-Shik Suh; Jong-Hyeok Kim; Yong-Man Kim; Young-Tak Kim; Joo-Hyun Nam
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Detection of lymph node metastasis in ovarian carcinoma and uterine corpus carcinoma by preoperative computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  T Sugiyama; T Nishida; K Ushijima; N Sato; A Kataoka; K Imaishi; K Fujiyoshi; M Yakushiji
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol (Tokyo 1995)       Date:  1995-12

9.  Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Koji Murakami; Erena Yamasaki; Yasushi Kaji; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning.

Authors:  Riccardo Manfredi; Paoletta Mirk; Giulia Maresca; Pasquale A Margariti; Antonia Testa; Gian Franco Zannoni; Deborah Giordano; Giovanni Scambia; Pasquale Marano
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-18       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  14 in total

1.  Preoperative PET/CT does not accurately detect extrauterine disease in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk endometrial cancer: A prospective study.

Authors:  Katherine I Stewart; Beth Chasen; William Erwin; Nicole Fleming; Shannon N Westin; Shayan Dioun; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro T Ramirez; Karen H Lu; Franklin Wong; Thomas A Aloia; Pamela T Soliman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Identification of Distant Metastatic Disease in Uterine Cervical and Endometrial Cancers with FDG PET/CT: Analysis from the ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 Multicenter Trial.

Authors:  Michael S Gee; Mostafa Atri; Andriy I Bandos; Robert S Mannel; Michael A Gold; Susanna I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Evolution of adjuvant treatment in endometrial cancer-no evidence and new questions?

Authors:  S Marnitz; C Köhler; N Gharbi; S Kunze; K Jablonska; J Herter
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Biomarkers for Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Casper Reijnen; Joanna IntHout; Leon F A G Massuger; Fleur Strobbe; Heidi V N Küsters-Vandevelde; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Marc P L M Snijders; Johanna M A Pijnenborg
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-06-11

5.  Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer-time to revisit current imaging guidelines?

Authors:  Kristine E Fasmer; Ankush Gulati; Julie A Dybvik; Kari S Wagner-Larsen; Njål Lura; Øyvind Salvesen; David Forsse; Jone Trovik; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Camilla Krakstad; Ingfrid S Haldorsen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Endometrial Cancer MRI staging: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Mariana Horta; Evis Sala; Yulia Lakhman; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Aki Kido; Gabriele Masselli; Nishat Bharwani; Elizabeth Sadowski; Andrea Ertmer; Milagros Otero-Garcia; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Teresa M Cunha; Andrea Rockall; Rosemarie Forstner
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  The role of 18F-FDG PET CT in common gynaecological malignancies.

Authors:  Priya Narayanan; Anju Sahdev
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Impact of local control and surgical lymph node evaluation in localized paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee.

Authors:  Jonathan C Routh; Roshni Dasgupta; Yueh-Yun Chi; Margarett Shnorhavorian; Jing Tian; David O Walterhouse; John Breneman; Suzanne L Wolden; Carola A Arndt; Douglas S Hawkins; David A Rodeberg
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Additional Value of PET/CT-Based Radiomics to Metabolic Parameters in Diagnosing Lynch Syndrome and Predicting PD1 Expression in Endometrial Carcinoma.

Authors:  Xinghao Wang; Ke Wu; Xiaoran Li; Junjie Jin; Yang Yu; Hongzan Sun
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Quantitative imaging of uterine cancers with diffusion-weighted MRI and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT.

Authors:  Madeleine Sertic; Aoife Kilcoyne; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Susanna I Lee
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-07-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.