Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients to differentiate between malignant transformation of endometrioma and endometrioma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Of those patients who undergo open surgery for a suspicion of malignant transformation of endometrioma (MTOE) due to solid nodule enhancement identified by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), some benign endometrioma cases are included. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the value and diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) to differentiate between MTOE and endometrioma.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 1599 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for the diagnosis of endometrioma preoperatively and 31 patients who underwent open surgery for a suspicion of MTOE preoperatively from January 2003 to December 2011. We analyzed the age, serum CA125 levels, and MRI findings of the patients and calculated the optimal cut-off value for PET/CT using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Results

Of the 1,599 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for a suspicion of endometrioma preoperatively, malignancy was identified in one (0.062 %) patient. Of the 31 patients who underwent open surgery for a suspicion of MTOE preoperatively, 11 were diagnosed with endometrioma (false positive group) and 20 with MTOE stage I (positive group). Age, tumor size, presence of shading on MRI and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) on PET/CT were significantly different between the two groups. A SUVmax cut-off >4.0 is capable of excluding endometrioma cases, with 75 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity (area under the curve 90 %).

Conclusion

PET/CT is a good diagnostic tool for MTOE using the optimal SUVmax cut-off of 4.0 (75 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harada T, Iwabe T, Terakawa N (2001) Role of cytokines in endometriosis. Fertil Steril 76:1–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kobayashi H, Sumimoto K, Moniwa N et al (2007) Risk of developing ovarian cancer among women with ovarian endometrioma: a cohort study in Shizuoka, Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17:37–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tanaka Y, Yoshizako T, Nishida M et al (2000) Ovarian carcinoma in patients with endometriosis: MR imaging findings. Am J Roentgenol 175:1423–1430

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Scott RB (1953) Malignant changes in endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 2:283–289

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Taniguchi F, Harada T, Kobayashi H et al (2014) Clinical characteristics of patients in Japan with ovarian cancer presumably arising from ovarian endometrioma. Gynecol Obstet Invest 77:104–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kawaguchi R, Tsuji Y, Haruta S et al (2008) Clinicopathologic features of ovarian cancer in patients with ovarian endometrioma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 34:872–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kobayashi H, Sumimoto K, Kitanaka T et al (2008) Ovarian endometrioma-risks factors of ovarian cancer development. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 138:187–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT et al (2010) Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol 116:389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Karlan BY, Hawkins R, Hoh C et al (1993) Whole-body positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose can detect recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 51:175–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rieber A, Nussle K, Stohr I et al (2001) Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. Am J Roentgenol 177:123–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D et al (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre– and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:266–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nishizawa S, Inubushi M, Okada H (2005) Physiological 18F-FDG uptake in the ovaries and uterus of healthy female volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:549–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Juntendo University, Hongo 2-1-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8431, Japan

    Soshi Kusunoki, Tsuyoshi Ota, Hiroshi Kaneda, Miki Kimura, Yasuhisa Terao & Satoru Takeda

Authors
  1. Soshi Kusunoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tsuyoshi Ota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Kaneda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miki Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yasuhisa Terao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Satoru Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soshi Kusunoki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kusunoki, S., Ota, T., Kaneda, H. et al. Analysis of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients to differentiate between malignant transformation of endometrioma and endometrioma . Int J Clin Oncol 21, 1136–1141 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-1013-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-1013-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation