Peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer: the role of CT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT
- 490 Downloads
The diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis secondary to ovarian cancer is a real challenge in the cancer imaging field. In this retrospective study, we evaluate the accuracy of Single Detector Computed Tomography (SDCT), Multi Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT), and Positron Emission Tomography–Computed Tomography with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) in the diagnosis of peritoneal seeding and we evaluate the possible applications of MDCT to predict the complete surgical removal of the peritoneal deposits.
Methods and materials
A total of 228 scans (91 SDCT, 89 MDCT, and 48 [18F]FDG-PET/CT) of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis secondary to ovarian cancer proved at laparoscopy and confirmed by histopathology were retrospectively reviewed by two independent groups of Radiologists and Nuclear Medicine Physicians for the evaluation of ascites, peritoneal nodules, and omental cake signs.
MDCT showed 81% of true positives, SDCT 72.5%, and [18F]FDG-PET/CT 77%. False negatives were 19% for MDCT, 27.5% for SDCT, and 23% for [18F]FDG-PET/CT.
From our results, we concluded that MDCT is the technique of choice in the diagnosis of peritoneal seeding, while [18F]FDG-PET/CT, though showing similar accuracy, remains the most accurate technique for monitoring therapeutic response and disease recurrence. MDCT could play an important role due to its ability to predict the possibility of complete surgical removal of disease thus influencing the treatment plan aimed to improve quality of life.
KeywordsOvarian cancer Peritoneal carcinomatosis Multi Detector CT Positron emission tomography Mesenteric root implant Single Detector CT
- 1.American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer Facts and Figs 2009. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer SocietyGoogle Scholar
- 2.Johns Hopkins ovarian cancer website. http://ovariancancer.jhmi.edu/menu_understanding.cfm. Accessed 11 September 2009
- 5.Schwartz PE (2008) Cytoreductive surgery in the management of ovarian cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 22(9):1025–1033 (discussion 1033–8, 1041,1045)Google Scholar
- 8.Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM, et al. (1999) Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis—Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 212:19–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.William MR. Introduction to gynaecologic oncology. www.gyncancer.com/ovarian-cancer.html. Accessed 11 September 2009
- 11.Edmonson JH, McCormack GW, Fleming TR, et al. (1985) Comparison of cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin versus hexamethylmelamine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in combination as initial chemotherapy for stage III and IV ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1243–1248PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Prokopf M, Galanski M (2003) Peritoneal Carcinomatosis and Metastases. Spiral and Multislice Computed Tomography of the Body, vol 16, pp 609–610Google Scholar
- 18.Hamacher K, Coenen HH, Stocklin G (1988) Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carried-added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-d-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med 29:241–247Google Scholar
- 20.Wimberger P, Lehmann N, Kimmig R, et al. (2007) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group Prognostic factors for complete debulking in advanced ovarian cancer and its impact on survival. An exploratory analysis of a prospectively randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR). Gynecol Oncol 106(1):69–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Gadducci A, Cosio S (2009) Surveillance of patients after initial treatment of ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 29.Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. (2001) Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol 176:1449–1454Google Scholar