Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 104–113 | Cite as

Comparison of FDG PET/CT and MRI in lymph node staging of endometrial cancer

  • Hyun Jeong Kim
  • Arthur Cho
  • Mijin Yun
  • Young Tae Kim
  • Won Jun KangEmail author
Original Article



Endometrial cancer is the most frequent cancer occurring in the female genital tract in the Western countries. Because surgical staging is currently the standard, noninvasive techniques that accurately identify lymph node (LN) metastases would be beneficial by reducing costs and complications. The purpose of our study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting LN metastases in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer.


Two hundred eighty-seven consecutive patients with endometrial cancer underwent preoperative PET/CT and MRI for staging. The malignancy criteria for LNs were a short diameter of 1 cm or more by MRI and focally increased 18F-FDG uptake by PET/CT. After evaluating PET/CT and MRI separately, morphologic and functional image findings were compared with the histological findings regarding LN metastasis for all patients. PET/CT and MRI images were classified on the basis of histological findings as true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, or false-negative. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated.


Histologic examination revealed LN metastases in 51 patients (17.8 %). The maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary lesions by PET/CT ranged from 1.4 to 37.7, with a mean value of 9.3, whereas those of the metastatic LNs ranged from 2.0 to 22.5 with a mean of 7.3. On a per-patient basis, node staging resulted in sensitivities of 70.0 % with 18F-FDG PET/CT and 34.0 % with MRI, and specificities of 95.4 % with PET/CT and 95.0 % with MRI. The NPV of PET/CT was 94.3 %, and that of MRI was 87.2 %. On a lesion base analysis, sensitivity of PET/CT was 79.4 % while that of MRI was 51.6 %. In detecting distant metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of PET/CT were 92.9, 98.9, 98.6, 81.3, and 99.6 %, respectively.


Diagnostic performance of FDG PET/CT was better than MRI for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with endometrial cancer both by patient basis and lesion basis analyses. Due to high NPV, FDG PET-CT could aid in selecting candidates for lymphadenectomy.


Endometrial cancer Staging 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography Lymph node 



This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (No. 2012027176) and National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare (1320210).


  1. 1.
    Di Cristofano A, Ellenson LH. Endometrial carcinoma. Annu Rev Pathol. 2007;2:57–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55(2):74–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gansler T, Ganz PA, Grant M, et al. Sixty years of CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(6):345–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(6):825–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manetta A, Delgado G, Petrilli E, Hummel S, Barnes W. The significance of paraaortic node status in carcinoma of the cervix and endometrium. Gynecol Oncol. 1986;23(3):284–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, et al. Therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrioid corpus cancer: a study of 12,333 patients. Cancer. 2006;107(8):1823–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belhocine T, De Barsy C, Hustinx R, Willems-Foidart J. Usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET in the post-therapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(9):1132–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohn DE, Dehdashti F, Gibb RK, et al. Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography for the detection of groin node metastases from vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85(1):179–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(4):907–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saga T, Higashi T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of FDG-PET in the follow up of post-operative patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17(3):197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, Recker BE, Kison PV, Wahl RL. Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(7):1125–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fulham MJ, Carter J, Baldey A, Hicks RJ, Ramshaw JE, Gibson M. The impact of PET-CT in suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective multi-centre study as part of the Australian PET Data Collection Project. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):462–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer—a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(1):145–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takekuma M, Maeda M, Ozawa T, Yasumi K, Torizuka T. Positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2005;10(3):177–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zimny M, Siggelkow W, Schroder 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(2):310–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(17):3745–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology. 2001;218(3):776–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, Faulhaber PF, Abdul-Karim FW, Miraldi F. Positron emission tomography for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):41–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al. Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(6):1652–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, et al. Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(3):486–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95(3):546–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewin SN, Wright JD. Comparative performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ staging system for uterine corpus cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Group As, Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet. 2009;373(9658):125–36.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(23):1707–16.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J, Lee AS, Josephson L, Brady TJ. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: an intravenous contrast agent for assessing lymph nodes with MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;175(2):494–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abu Freij M, Saleh H, Rawlins H, Duncan T, Nieto J. The use of MRI for selecting patients with endometrial cancer and significant co-morbidities for vaginal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(5):1097–101.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231(2):372–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duncan KA, Drinkwater KJ, Frost C, Remedios D, Barter S. Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(6):523–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Signorelli M, Guerra L, Buda A, et al. 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. 2009;115(2):231–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):300–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kakhki VR, Shahriari S, Treglia G, et al. Diagnostic performance of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for detection of primary lesion and staging of endometrial cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(9):1536–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(9):1519–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Catana C, Guimaraes AR, Rosen BR. PET and MR imaging: the odd couple or a match made in heaven? J Nucl Med. 2013;54(5):815–24.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyun Jeong Kim
    • 1
  • Arthur Cho
    • 1
  • Mijin Yun
    • 1
  • Young Tae Kim
    • 2
  • Won Jun Kang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women’s Life Medical ScienceYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations