Literature DB >> 29467905

[18F]FDG-PET/CT and MRI for initial pelvic lymph node staging in patients with cervical carcinoma: The potential usefulness of [18F]FDG-PET/MRI.

Philip Anner1, Marius Mayerhöfer2, Wolfgang Wadsak1, Silvana Geleff3, Robert Dudczak1, Alexander Haug1, Marcus Hacker1, Georgios Karanikas1.   

Abstract

The current study aimed to determine the optimum diagnostic imaging technique out of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 18F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG-PET/CT, otherwise known as PET/CT) and [18F]FDG-PET/MRI (otherwise known as PET/MRI) for the pelvic lymph node staging (N-staging) of untreated cervical carcinoma (CC). A total of 27 patients were included in the present study. All patients had undergone pre-treatment with PET/CT and MRI ≤45 days prior to undergoing a lymphadenectomy. The results from PET (separated from PET/CT), MRI and the statistically combined results of (virtual) PET/MRI were compared to those from histological analyses (the gold standard). A per-patient-based analysis of the detection of pelvic lymph node metastases indicated that PET/MRI had a sensitivity of 64%. The specificity of PET/CT and MRI were 69 and 62%, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 69 and 64% for PET/CT and MRI, respectively. The negative predictive value (NPV) was 64 and 62% for PET/CT and MRI, respectively. The sensitivity of the PET-guided PET/MRI and the MRI-guided PET/MRI was 64% for both. The specificity of the PET-guided PET/MRI and the MRI-guided PET/MRI was 77 and 62%, respectively. The PPV was 75% for PET-guided PET/MRI and 64% for MRI-guided PET/MRI, and the NPV was 67 and 62%, respectively. PET/CT and the virtual PET/MRI exhibited the same low sensitivity (64%). PET/MRI exhibited slightly better results than PET/CT regarding specificity (77 vs. 69%, respectively), PPV (75 vs. 69%, respectively) and NPV (67 vs. 64%, respectively). The results of the present study suggested that PET/CT and MRI are not optimal diagnostic modalities, and that PET/MRI does not necessarily lead to better results than PET/CT, in the pelvic N-staging of CC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  18F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; cervical carcinoma; magnetic resonance imaging; pelvic nodal staging; positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging

Year:  2018        PMID: 29467905      PMCID: PMC5796368          DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.7775

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncol Lett        ISSN: 1792-1074            Impact factor:   2.967


  24 in total

1.  Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000.

Authors:  D M Parkin; F Bray; J Ferlay; P Pisani
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2001-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer.

Authors:  Sang-Young Ryu; Moon-Hong Kim; Suck-Chul Choi; Chang-Woon Choi; Kyung-Hee Lee
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  The prognostic significance of number of positive nodes in cervical carcinoma stages IB, IIA, and IIB.

Authors:  T Inoue; K Morita
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Evaluation of gynecologic cancer with MR imaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and PET/MR imaging.

Authors:  Susanna I Lee; Onofrio A Catalano; Farrokh Dehdashti
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer.

Authors:  M S Piver; F Rutledge; J P Smith
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1974-08       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Preoperative lymph node staging of early-stage cervical carcinoma by [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Farrokh Dehdashti; Thomas J Herzog; David G Mutch; Phyllis C Huettner; Janet S Rader; Randall K Gibb; Matthew A Powell; Feng Gao; Barry A Siegel; Perry W Grigsby
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer.

Authors:  R Winter; E Petru; J Haas
Journal:  Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1988-12

8.  [Clinical analysis of lymph node metastasis in 695 cases of early invasive cervical carcinoma].

Authors:  Hua Jiang; Kang-yun Xie; Bin-rong Cao
Journal:  Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2011-03-08

Review 9.  Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tara J Selman; Christopher Mann; Javier Zamora; Tracy-Louise Appleyard; Khalid Khan
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 10.  Imaging in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Michele Follen; Charles F Levenback; Revathy B Iyer; Perry W Grigsby; Erik A Boss; Ebrahim S Delpassand; Bruno D Fornage; Elliot K Fishman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.