Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT

  • Kazuhiro Kitajima
  • Koji Murakami
  • Erena Yamasaki
  • Yasushi Domeki
  • Yasushi Kaji
  • Ichio Fukasawa
  • Noriyuki Inaba
  • Narufumi Suganuma
  • Kazuro Sugimura
Original Article



The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management, compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.


One hundred thirty-two women previously treated for ovarian cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT, and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging, and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.


Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 78.8% (52 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 84.8% (112 of 132), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 74.2% (49 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 82.6% (109 of 132), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 60.6% (40 of 66), 84.8% (56 of 66), and 72.7% (96 of 132), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran Q test: p = 0.0001, p = 0.018, and p < 0.0001, respectively). The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 51 of the 132 patients (39%) and had an effect on patient management in 16 patients (12%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and three patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT.


Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing ovarian cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.


Ovarian cancer Recurrence 18F-FDG PET/CT 



We thank Kennichi Kobayashi, Kouichi Asano, Kazufumi Suzuki, Kaoru Ishida, and Tomoyuki Sakamoto for their excellent technical assistance and generous support.


  1. 1.
    Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishmann EK, O’Neill MJ, Trimble EL, et al. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer. 2000;89:1532–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2519–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, Kucera PR, Partridge EE, Look KY, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Eng J Med. 1996;334:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dauplat J, Le Bouedec G, Pomel C, Scherer C. Cytoreductive surgery for advanced stages of ovarian cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19:42–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grrenlee RT, Hill Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51:15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Niloff JM, Bast RC Jr, Schaetzl EM, Knapp RC. Predictive value of CA 125 antigen levels in second-look procedures for ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;151:981–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rustin G, Tuxen M. Use of CA 125 in follow-up of ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:191–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rustin GJS, Marples M, Nelstrop AE, Mahmoudi M, Meyer T. Use of CA-125 to define progression of ovarian cancer in patients with persistently elevated levels. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4054–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Rosa V, Mangoni di Stefano ML, Brunetti A, Caraco C, Graziano R, Gallo MS, et al. Computed tomography and second-look surgery in ovarian cancer patients. Correlation, actual role and limitations of CT scan. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1995;16:123–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferrozzi F, Bova D, DeChiara F, Garlaschi G, Draghi F, Cocconi G, et al. Thin-section CT follow-up of metastatic ovarian carcinoma correlation with levels of CA-125 marker and clinical history. Clin Imag. 1998;22:364–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Topuz E, Aydiner A, Saip P, Eralp Y, Tas F, Salihoglu Y, et al. Correlation of serum CA125 level and computerized tomography (CT) imaging with laparotomic findings following intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2000;21:599–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Funt SA, Hricak H, Abu-Rustum N, Mazumdar M, Felderman H, Chi DS. Role of CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:393–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti KA, Powell CB, Frankel SD, Stern JL. Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;19:619–26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ricke J, Sehouli J, Hach C, Hanninen EL, Lichtenegger W, Felix R. Prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced MRI in the depiction of peritoneal spread in primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:943–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Low RN, Duggan B, Barone RM, Saleh F, Thomas Song SY. Treated ovarian cancer: MR imaging, laparotomy reassessment, and serum CA-125 values compared with clinical outcome at 1 year. Radiology. 2005;235:918–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Montz FJ, Fishman EK. Multidetector CT of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer. RadioGraphics. 2003;23:687–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook GJ, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Normal variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and carbon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:1363–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kostakoglu L, Agress Jr H, Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. Radiographics. 2003;23:315–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1200–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zimmy M, Siggelkow W, Schroder W, Nowak B, Biemann S, Rath W, et al. 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;83:310–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rose PG, Faulhaber P, Miraldi F, Abdul-Karim FW. Positive emission tomography for evaluating a complete clinical response in patients with ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma: Correlation with second-look laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:17–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chang WC, Hung YC, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY, Lin CC. Usefulness of whole body positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) to detect recurrent ovarian cancer based to asymptomatically elevated serum levels of tumor marker (CA-125 antigen). Neoplasma. 2002;49:329–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lai CH, Huang KG, See LC, Yen TC, Tsai CS, Chang TC, et al. Restaging of recurrent cervical carcinoma with dual-phase [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2004;100:544–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, Zangheri B, Aletti G, Garevaglia E, et al. Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: Correlation with histologic findings. Radiology. 2004;233:433–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pannu HK, Cohade C, Bristow RE, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT detection of abdominal recurrence of ovarian cancer: radiologic-surgical correlation. Abdom Imaging. 2004;39:398–403.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hauth EAM, Antoch G, Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Veit P, Bosckisch A, et al. Evaluation of integrated whole-body PET/CT in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J of Radiol. 2005;56:263–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bristow RE, Giuntoli II RL, Pannu HK, Schulick RD, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:294–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mangili G, Picchio M, Sironi S, Vigano R, Rabaiotti E, Bornaghi D, et al. Integrated PET/CT as a first-line re-staging modality in patients with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:658–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thrall MM, DeLoia JA, Gallion H, Avril N. Clinical use of combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:17–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. Role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in the assessment of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: correlation with clinical or histological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:480–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, Scott JA, Fischman AJ, Simeone JF, et al. PET-CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:112–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: Dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003;229:526–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Muller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18–2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4357–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, Brown DL, Kurtz AB, McNeil BJ. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities—report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 2000;215:761–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coleman ER, Delbeke D, Guiberteau MJ, Conti PS, Royal HD, Weinreb JC, et al. Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1225–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cohade C, Wahl RL. Applications of positron emission tomography/computed tomography image fusion in clinical positron emission tomography: clinical use, interpretation methods, diagnostic improvements. Semi Nucl Med. 2003;33:228–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, Taverna C, Seifert B, Stumpe KD, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG-PET and CT at staging and restaging-Do we need contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology. 2004;232:823–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I, Hernandez-Maraver D, Coya J, Martin-Curto L, et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1643–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, Pan T, Knight A, Macapinlac HA, et al. Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:308–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:56–65.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, Muller M, Bares R, Paulsen F, et al. Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, Muller M, Klein M, Bares R, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:437–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuhiro Kitajima
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Koji Murakami
    • 2
  • Erena Yamasaki
    • 2
  • Yasushi Domeki
    • 2
  • Yasushi Kaji
    • 1
  • Ichio Fukasawa
    • 3
  • Noriyuki Inaba
    • 3
  • Narufumi Suganuma
    • 4
  • Kazuro Sugimura
    • 5
  1. 1.Departments of RadiologyDokkyo University School of MedicineMibu, Shimotuka-gunJapan
  2. 2.PET CenterDokkyo Medical University HospitalMibuJapan
  3. 3.Departments of Obsteris and GynecologyDokkyo University School of MedicineMibuJapan
  4. 4.Department of Environmental MedicineKochi University Medical SchoolKochiJapan
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations