Elizabeth K A Triumbari1, Elizabeth J de Koster2, Vittoria Rufini, Simona M Fragomeni3, Giorgia Garganese, Angela Collarino4. 1. From the Section of Nuclear Medicine, University Department of Radiological Sciences and Haematology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Vul.Can MDT, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome. 4. Nuclear Medicine Unit.
Abstract
AIM: The aims of this study were to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients and to extract summary estimates of its diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify studies evaluating 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients. The assessment of methodological quality of the included articles was performed. Per-patient and per-groin pooled estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. RESULTS: Ten articles were included in the systematic review, 7 among which evaluated the diagnostic performance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging. Qualitative per-patient analysis (72 patients from 4 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.76-1.04), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97), and 10.49 (95% CI, 1.68-65.50), respectively. Qualitative per-groin analysis (245 groins from 5 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 19.43 (95% CI, 6.40-58.95), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited literature data, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that a negative preoperative PET/CT scan may exclude groin metastases in at least early-stage vulvar cancer patients currently unfit for sentinel node biopsy and select those eligible for a less invasive surgical treatment. A positive PET/CT result should otherwise be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to evaluate the diagnostic value of standardized semiquantitative analysis compared with the qualitative one.
AIM: The aims of this study were to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancerpatients and to extract summary estimates of its diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify studies evaluating 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancerpatients. The assessment of methodological quality of the included articles was performed. Per-patient and per-groin pooled estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. RESULTS: Ten articles were included in the systematic review, 7 among which evaluated the diagnostic performance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging. Qualitative per-patient analysis (72 patients from 4 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.76-1.04), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97), and 10.49 (95% CI, 1.68-65.50), respectively. Qualitative per-groin analysis (245 groins from 5 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 19.43 (95% CI, 6.40-58.95), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited literature data, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that a negative preoperative PET/CT scan may exclude groin metastases in at least early-stage vulvar cancerpatients currently unfit for sentinel node biopsy and select those eligible for a less invasive surgical treatment. A positive PET/CT result should otherwise be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to evaluate the diagnostic value of standardized semiquantitative analysis compared with the qualitative one.
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