Literature DB >> 29260365

Prognostic importance of peritoneal lesion-to-primary tumour standardized uptake value ratio in advanced serous epithelial ovarian cancer.

Hyun Hoon Chung1, Jae-Weon Kim2, Noh-Hyun Park2, Yong Sang Song2, Gi Jeong Cheon3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Using preoperative PET/CT, we evaluated the prognostic value of preoperative [18F]FDG uptake ratio between various metastatic lesions and primary tumour in patients with advanced serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III, IV serous EOC who underwent preoperative [18F]FDG PET/CT scans. Clinico-pathological variables and PET/CT parameters such as maximum standardized uptake value of the ovarian cancer (SUVovary), pelvic or para-aortic LN (SUVLN), peritoneal (SUVperit) and distant extra-peritoneal (SUVdist) metastatic lesions, and the metastatic lesion-to-ovarian cancer standardized uptake value ratio were assessed.
RESULTS: Clinico-pathological data were retrospectively reviewed for 97 eligible patients. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18 months (range, 6-90 months) and 59 (60.8 %) patients experienced recurrence. In multivariate regression analysis, older age (p = 0.035, hazard ratio (HR) 1.032, 95 % CI 1.002-1.062), and high SUVperit/SUVovary (p = 0.046, HR 1.755, 95 % CI 1.011-3.047) were independent risk factors of recurrence. Patient group categorized by SUVperit/SUVovary showed significant difference in PFS (Log-Rank test, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced serous EOC, preoperative SUVperit/SUVovary measured by [18F]FDG PET/CT provides significant incremental performance for prediction of recurrence. KEY POINTS: • PET/CT data from advanced serous epithelial ovarian cancer patients were analysed. • Prognostic value of SUV ratio between metastatic and primary tumour was investigated. • SUV perit /SUV ovary provides incremental performance for prediction of recurrence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Metastasis; Ovarian cancer; PET scan; Peritoneum; Prognosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29260365     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5194-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  28 in total

1.  Is the easier way ever the better way?

Authors:  Dennis S Chi; Robert E Bristow; Deborah K Armstrong; Beth Y Karlan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Impact of a structured quality management program on surgical outcome in primary advanced ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Philipp Harter; Zelal M Muallem; Christine Buhrmann; Dietmar Lorenz; Christine Kaub; Rita Hils; Stefan Kommoss; Florian Heitz; Alexander Traut; Andreas du Bois
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 3.  Regulation of cancer cell metabolism.

Authors:  Rob A Cairns; Isaac S Harris; Tak W Mak
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 4.  Lymph node-positive stage IIIC ovarian cancer: a separate entity?

Authors:  Jonathan S Berek
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.437

5.  Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  N F Hacker; J S Berek; L D Lagasse; R K Nieberg; R M Elashoff
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Tumor residual after surgical cytoreduction in prediction of clinical outcome in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

Authors:  William E Winter; G Larry Maxwell; Chunqiao Tian; Michael J Sundborg; G Scott Rose; Peter G Rose; Stephen C Rubin; Franco Muggia; William P McGuire
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-19       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with (18)F-Fluoroethylcholine PET/CT.

Authors:  David Pfister; Daniel Porres; Axel Heidenreich; Isabel Heidegger; Ruth Knuechel; Florian Steib; Florian F Behrendt; Frederik A Verburg
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Prognostic factors for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

Authors:  William E Winter; G Larry Maxwell; Chunqiao Tian; Jay W Carlson; Robert F Ozols; Peter G Rose; Maurie Markman; Deborah K Armstrong; Franco Muggia; William P McGuire
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Cancer statistics, 2009.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Yongping Hao; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 10.  How We Read Oncologic FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Michael S Hofman; Rodney J Hicks
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.