Andrea Papadia1, Maria Luisa Gasparri2, Sophie Genoud2, Klaeser Bernd3, Michael D Mueller2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Bern and University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. andrea.papadia@insel.ch. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Bern and University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of PET/CT and/or SLN mapping alone or in combination in cervical cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on stage IA1-IIA cervical cancer patients undergoing PET/CT and SLN mapping were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PET/CT and SLN mapping, alone or in combination, in identifying cervical cancer patients with lymph node metastases were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria. PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 84%, a PPV of 61% and a NPV of 88% in detecting lymph nodal metastases. SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100% and a NPV of 97%. The combination of PET/CT and SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 72% and a NPV of 100%. For patients with tumors of >2 cm in diameter, the PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 72%, a PPV of 61% and a NPV of 86%. SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100% and a NPV of 95%. The combination of PET/CT and SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 76%, a PPV of 72% and a NPV of 100%. CONCLUSION: PET/CT represents a "safety net" that helps the surgeon in identifying metastatic lymph nodes, especially in patients with larger tumors.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of PET/CT and/or SLN mapping alone or in combination in cervical cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on stage IA1-IIA cervical cancerpatients undergoing PET/CT and SLN mapping were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PET/CT and SLN mapping, alone or in combination, in identifying cervical cancerpatients with lymph node metastases were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria. PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 84%, a PPV of 61% and a NPV of 88% in detecting lymph nodal metastases. SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100% and a NPV of 97%. The combination of PET/CT and SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 72% and a NPV of 100%. For patients with tumors of >2 cm in diameter, the PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 72%, a PPV of 61% and a NPV of 86%. SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100% and a NPV of 95%. The combination of PET/CT and SLN mapping showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 76%, a PPV of 72% and a NPV of 100%. CONCLUSION: PET/CT represents a "safety net" that helps the surgeon in identifying metastatic lymph nodes, especially in patients with larger tumors.
Authors: Ilary Ruscito; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Elena Ioana Braicu; Filippo Bellati; Luigi Raio; Jalid Sehouli; Michael D Mueller; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Andrea Papadia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Beatrice Cormier; John P Diaz; Karin Shih; Rachael M Sampson; Yukio Sonoda; Kay J Park; Khaled Alektiar; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Giampaolo Di Martino; Cinzia Crivellaro; Elena De Ponti; Beatrice Bussi; Andrea Papadia; Ignacio Zapardiel; Enrico Vizza; Federica Elisei; Maria Dolores Diestro; Luca Locatelli; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Paolo Di Lorenzo; Michael Mueller; Alessandro Buda Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Sara Imboden; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Franziska Siegenthaler; Anja Fink; Michael D Mueller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Andrea Papadia; Sara Imboden; Franziska Siegenthaler; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Stefan Mohr; Susanne Lanz; Michael D Mueller Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 5.344