Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 127–133 | Cite as

18F-FDG-PET/CT is of limited value in primary staging of early stage cervical cancer

  • Dearbhail O. Driscoll
  • Darragh Halpenny
  • Ciaran Johnston
  • Niall Sheehy
  • Mary Keogan
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the clinical benefit of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in evaluating pelvic lymph nodes in patients with early stage cervical cancer (FIGO stage 1a–1b1), who have magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined lymph node negative disease, with histopathologic results as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods

We assessed one hundred and seventy nine sequential 18F-FDG-PET/CT scans in women with newly diagnosed cervical carcinoma between January 2009 and September 2011. 47 of these patients had early stage disease (FIGO stage 1a–1b1) with no suspicious lymph nodes on MRI. 18F-FDG-PET/CT images were analyzed and histopathological findings (pelvic lymph node resection) served as the reference standard.

Results

The median age of patients was 48 (range 22–86) years. 66 % had squamous histotype. Median number of nodes dissected per patient was 21 (range 8–47), 2 of 47 patients had nodal metastases (4.25 %). All patients in this group had no suspicious lymph nodes on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Overall patient based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of nodal disease were 0 %, 100 %, 0 %, 96 %, and 96 % respectively.

Conclusion

Pathologic validation of 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging demonstrates little value for 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with early stage (FIGO stage 1a–1b1) MRI-defined lymph node negative cervical carcinoma. Since the likelihood of metastatic nodal disease is very low in women with stage 1a–1b1 cervical cancer, we believe that 18F-FDG-PET/CT should not have a role in the routine pre-treatment evaluation of these women.

Keywords

Oncology Gynecology Cervical Cancer 18F-FDG-PET/CT MRI 

Notes

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmedin J, Bray F, Center M, et al. (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:103–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. (1997) Randomized study of radical surgery vs. radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350(9077):535–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peters WA III, Liu PY, Barret R 2nd, et al. (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high risk early stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18(8):1606–1613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F (2001) Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 19:3745–3749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR (1997) Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta analysis. JAMA 278:1096–1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ, et al. (2007) Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 104(3):529–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yildirim Y, Sehirali S, Avci ME, et al. (2008) Integrated PET/CT for the evaluation of para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer patients with negative conventional CT findings. Gynecol Oncol 108(1):154–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leblanc E, Gauthier H, Querleu D, et al. (2011) Accuracy of 18-fluro-2-deoxy-d-glucose position emission tomography in the pretherapeutic detection of occult para-aortic node involvement in patients with a locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 18(8):2302–2309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mittra E, ElMaghraby T, Rodriguez CA, et al. (2009) Efficacy of 18F_FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with recurrent cervical carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36(12):1952–1959PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bentivegna E, Uzan C, Gouy S, et al. (2010) Correlation between [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose position emission tomography scan and histology of pelvic lymph nodes in early stage cervical cancer. Anticancer Res 30(3):1029–1032PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Unger JB, Ivy JJ, Ramaswamy MR, Charrrier A, Connor P (2005) Whole-body [18F] fluoro-2-deoxyglucose position-emission tomography scan staging prior to planned radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15(6):1060–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, et al. (2006) Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early stage cervical cancer detection with integrated FDG-PET/CT. Radiology 238(1):272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright JD, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, et al. (2005) Preoperative lymph node staging of early stage cervical carcinoma by [18F]_fluoro_2_deoxy_d_glucose_ positron emission tomography. Cancer 104:2484–2491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chou HH, Chang TC, Yen TC, et al. (2006) Low value of [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose position-emission tomography in primary staging of early stage cervical cancer before radical hysterectomy. J Clin Oncol 24(1):123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Signorelli M, Guerra L, Buda A, et al. (2009) Role of the integrated FDG-PET/CT in the surgical management of patients with high risk clinical early stage endometrial cancer; detection of pelvic nodal metastases. Gynecol Oncol 115(2):231–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, et al. (2006) Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective sudy. Cancer 106:914–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manfredi R, Gui B, Giovanzana A, et al. (2009) Localized cervical cancer (stage <IIB): accuracy of MR imaging in planning less extensive surgery. Radiol Med 114(6):960–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stenstedt K, Hellstrom AC, Fridsten S, Blomqvist L (2011) Impact of MRI in the management and staging of cancer of the uterine cervix. Acta Oncol 50(3):420–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dearbhail O. Driscoll
    • 1
  • Darragh Halpenny
    • 1
  • Ciaran Johnston
    • 1
  • Niall Sheehy
    • 1
  • Mary Keogan
    • 1
  1. 1.St. James HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations