Advertisement

Clinical and survival impact of FDG PET in patients with suspicion of recurrent cervical carcinoma

  • Amandine Pallardy
  • Caroline Bodet-Milin
  • Aurore Oudoux
  • Loïc Campion
  • Emmanuelle Bourbouloux
  • Christine Sagan
  • Catherine Ansquer
  • Aude Testard
  • Isabelle Resche
  • Boumédiène Bridji
  • Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré
  • Caroline RousseauEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the contribution of 18F-FDG PET to the clinical management and survival outcome of patients suspected of recurrent cervical carcinoma and in line with the hypothesis that early diagnosis of recurrent cervical cancer may improve overall survival.

Methods

A total of 40 patients underwent conventional imaging (CI) and FDG PET/CT for suspected cervical cancer. Clinical management decisions were recorded with CI and additional PET/CT. Discordances and concordances between CI and PET/CT results were compared to the final diagnosis as based on histopathology analysis or follow-up considered as the gold standard.

Results

The final diagnosis was established pathologically (n = 25) or by median clinical follow-up for 48 months after the PET (n = 15). The PET/CT was positive in 76% (20/26) of patients compared to 19% (6/26) with CI. Globally PET/CT modified the treatment plan in 55% (22/40) of patients and in 75% (18/24) when the CI was negative prior to PET/CT. These changes led to the use of previously unplanned therapeutic procedures in 37.5% (15/40). When FDG PET was positive for recurrence (> 3 foci), the median overall survival was 12 months (2–70) compared to patients with PET findings with ≤ 1 focus for which the median survival was not attained (p = 0.007). A multivariate analysis of prognostic factors demonstrated that abnormal FDG uptake (> 3 foci) was the most significant factor (p < 0.03) for death from cervical cancer.

Conclusion

FDG PET is a valuable tool in the case of suspected recurrence of cervical cancer on account of its impact on treatment planning and especially in predicting patient outcome.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Recurrence PET/CT 18F-FDG Survival outcome 

References

  1. 1.
    Waggoner SE. Cervical cancer. Lancet 2003;361:2217–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodurka-Bevers D, Morris M, Eifel PJ, Levenback C, Bevers MW, Lucas KR, et al. Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcomes analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:187–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maiman M. The clinical application of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen level monitoring in invasive cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2002;84:4–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hatano K, Sekiya Y, Araki H, Sakai M, Togawa T, Narita Y, et al. Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of radiotherapy on cervical cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:639–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH. Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:347–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang TC, Law KS, Hong JH, Lai CH, Ng KK, Hsueh S, et al. Positron emission tomography for unexplained elevation of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels during follow-up for patients with cervical malignancies: a phase II study. Cancer 2004;101:164–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Yen TC, See LC, Chang TC, Huang KG, Ng KK, Tang SG, et al. Defining the priority of using 18F-FDG PET for recurrent cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1632–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Veldt AA, Buist MR, van Baal MW, Comans EF, Hoekstra OS, Molthoff CF. Clarifying the diagnosis of clinically suspected recurrence of cervical cancer: impact of 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1936–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shepherd JH. Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:405–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yen TC, See LC, Lai CH, Tsai CS, Chao A, Hsueh S, et al. Standardized uptake value in para-aortic lymph nodes is a significant prognostic factor in patients with primary advanced squamous cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:493–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer 2007;110:1738–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller TR, Pinkus E, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Improved prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET using a simple visual analysis of tumor characteristics in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:192–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooks RA, Rader JS, Dehdashti F, Mutch DG, Powell MA, Thaker PH, et al. Surveillance FDG-PET detection of asymptomatic recurrences in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:104–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Posttherapy [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in carcinoma of the cervix: response and outcome. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2167–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Mutch DG. Posttherapy surveillance monitoring of cervical cancer by FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:907–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwarz JK, Barry AS, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA 2007;298:2289–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Unger JB, Ivy JJ, Connor P, Charrier A, Ramaswamy MR, Ampil FL, et al. Detection of recurrent cervical cancer by whole-body FDG PET scan in asymptomatic and symptomatic women. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94:212–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:529–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mittra E, El-Maghraby T, Rodriguez CA, Quon A, Ross McDougall I, Gambhir SS, et al. Efficacy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with recurrent cervical carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; published online.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Bettinardi V, et al. Post-therapy surveillance of patients with uterine cancers: value of integrated FDG PET/CT in the detection of recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:472–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yen TC, Ng KK, Ma SY, Chou HH, Tsai CH, Hsueh S, et al. Value of dual-phase 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3651–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Havrilesky LJ, Wong TZ, Secord AA, Berchuck A, Clarke-Pearson DL, Jones EL.The role of PET scanning in the detection of recurrent cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:186–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sakurai H, Suzuki Y, Nonaka T, Ishikawa H, Shioya M, Kiyohara H, et al. FDG-PET in the detection of recurrence of uterine cervical carcinoma following radiation therapy—tumor volume and FDG uptake value. Gynecol Oncol 2006;100:601–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:1912–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Machida S, Ohwada M, Saga Y, Suzuki M. Abnormal fragile histidine triad expression in advanced cervical cancer and evaluation of its utility as a prognostic factor. Oncology 2003;65:89–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amandine Pallardy
    • 1
  • Caroline Bodet-Milin
    • 2
  • Aurore Oudoux
    • 2
  • Loïc Campion
    • 3
    • 6
  • Emmanuelle Bourbouloux
    • 4
  • Christine Sagan
    • 5
  • Catherine Ansquer
    • 2
  • Aude Testard
    • 1
  • Isabelle Resche
    • 1
  • Boumédiène Bridji
    • 1
  • Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Caroline Rousseau
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentRené Gauducheau Cancer CenterSaint HerblainFrance
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentUniversity HospitalNantesFrance
  3. 3.Biostatistics DepartmentRené Gauducheau Cancer CenterSaint HerblainFrance
  4. 4.Medical Oncology DepartmentRené Gauducheau Cancer CenterSaint HerblainFrance
  5. 5.Pathology DepartmentUniversity HospitalSaint HerblainFrance
  6. 6.Cancer Research Center CRCNA, INSERM UMR 892Nantes UniversityNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations