Björg Jónsdóttir1, Montserrat Alemany Ripoll2, Håkan Ahlström2,3, Karin Stålberg4, Antonina Bergman2, Ilvars Silins4, Inger Sundström Poromaa4. 1. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden. bjorg.jonsdottir@kbh.uu.se. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Antaros, Medical AB, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis is difficult to estimate preoperatively, but a valid measure would be important in identifying operable patients. The present study set out to validate the usefulness of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI, in comparison with diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), for estimation of the extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with gynaecological cancer. METHODS: Whole-body PET/MRI was performed on 34 patients with presumed carcinomatosis of gynaecological origin, all scheduled for surgery. Two radiologists evaluated the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) on PET/MRI and DW-MRI scans in consensus. The surgeon estimated PCI intraoperatively, which was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: Median total PCI for PET/MRI (21.5) was closer to surgical PCI (24.5) (p = 0.6), than DW-MRI (median PCI 20.0, p = 0.007). However, both methods were highly correlated with the surgical PCI (PET/MRI: β = 0.94 p < 0.01, DW-MRI: β = 0.86, p < 0.01). PET/MRI was more accurate (p = 0.3) than DW-MRI (p = 0.001) when evaluating patients at primary diagnosis but no difference was noted in patients treated with chemotherapy. PET/MRI was superior in evaluating high tumour burden in inoperable patients. In the small bowel regions, there was a tendency of higher sensitivity but lower specificity in PET/MRI compared to DW-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that FDG PET/MRI is superior to DW-MRI in estimating total spread of carcinomatosis in gynaecological cancer. Further, the greatest advantage of PET/MRI seems to be in patients at primary diagnosis and with high tumour burden, which suggest that it could be a useful tool when deciding about operability in gynaecological cancer.
BACKGROUND: The extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis is difficult to estimate preoperatively, but a valid measure would be important in identifying operable patients. The present study set out to validate the usefulness of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI, in comparison with diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), for estimation of the extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with gynaecological cancer. METHODS: Whole-body PET/MRI was performed on 34 patients with presumed carcinomatosis of gynaecological origin, all scheduled for surgery. Two radiologists evaluated the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) on PET/MRI and DW-MRI scans in consensus. The surgeon estimated PCI intraoperatively, which was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: Median total PCI for PET/MRI (21.5) was closer to surgical PCI (24.5) (p = 0.6), than DW-MRI (median PCI 20.0, p = 0.007). However, both methods were highly correlated with the surgical PCI (PET/MRI: β = 0.94 p < 0.01, DW-MRI: β = 0.86, p < 0.01). PET/MRI was more accurate (p = 0.3) than DW-MRI (p = 0.001) when evaluating patients at primary diagnosis but no difference was noted in patients treated with chemotherapy. PET/MRI was superior in evaluating high tumour burden in inoperable patients. In the small bowel regions, there was a tendency of higher sensitivity but lower specificity in PET/MRI compared to DW-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that FDG PET/MRI is superior to DW-MRI in estimating total spread of carcinomatosis in gynaecological cancer. Further, the greatest advantage of PET/MRI seems to be in patients at primary diagnosis and with high tumour burden, which suggest that it could be a useful tool when deciding about operability in gynaecological cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinomatosis; DW-MRI; Ovarian cancer; PET/MRI; Peritoneal cancer index (PCI)
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Rafael S Tomacruz; Deborah K Armstrong; Edward L Trimble; F J Montz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A-A K Tentes; G Tripsiannis; S K Markakidis; C N Karanikiotis; G Tzegas; G Georgiadis; K Avgidou Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Rudy S Suidan; Pedro T Ramirez; Debra M Sarasohn; Jerrold B Teitcher; Svetlana Mironov; Revathy B Iyer; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Harold Paul; Masayoshi Hosaka; Carol A Aghajanian; Mario M Leitao; Ginger J Gardner; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Hedvig Hricak; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jack W Power; Philip J Dempsey; Andrew Yates; Helen Fenlon; Jurgen Mulsow; Conor Shields; Carmel G Cronin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.629