Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

PET–CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To compare fusion, positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET–CT) with CT alone in detecting ovarian carcinoma recurrence.

Methods

Fifty-one consecutive patients underwent 53 restaging PET–CT scans with a concurrent diagnostic quality CT scan. Two body imaging radiologists independently assessed the CT’s; each then teamed with a nuclear medicine specialist to review the PET–CT’s. Two teams conferred for consensus on the presence of disease in the chest, abdomen, and body overall with CT alone and with PET–CT, using a six-point reader confidence metric to determine accuracy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Reader agreement was compared using kappa. Recurrence was determined by two gynecologic oncologists reviewing clinical records from time of presentation to at least 13 months (mean 22.7) after imaging.

Results

Recurrence was based on histopathology in 17% (9/53). Seventy-two percent (38/53) cases had recurrence, with two cases showing isolated chest recurrence. PET–CT accuracy exceeded CT for body 92% (49/53) vs. 83% (44/53), chest 96% (51/53) vs. 89% (47/53), and abdomen 91% (48/53) vs. 79% (42/53). ROC curves for PET–CT dominated that for CT alone; this difference was statistically significant for abdomen and for body overall (P < 0.01). Interobserver agreement was better for PET–CT than for CT alone.

Conclusions

PET–CT demonstrates greater accuracy and less interobserver variability than CT alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures 2005. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2005f4PWSecured.pdf

  2. Silverberg E, Boring CC, Squires TS (1990) Cancer statistics, 1990. CA Cancer J Clin 40:318–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nahhas WA (1997) Ovarian cancer. Current outlook on this deadly disease. Postgrad Med 102:112–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nanni C, Rubello D, Farsad M, et al. (2005) (18) F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective study on forty-one patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:792–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Look M, Chang D, Sugarbaker PH (2004) Long-term results of cytoreductive surgery for advanced and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancers and papillary serous carcinoma of the peritoneum. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14:35–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Niloff JM, Bast RC Jr, Schaetzl EM, et al. (1985) Predictive value of CA 125 antigen levels in second-look procedures for ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:981–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cho SM, Ha HK, Byun JY, et al. (2002) Usefulness of FDG PET for assessment of early recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:391–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Makhija S, Howden N, Edwards R, et al. (2002) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for the detection of recurrent ovarian and fallopian tube carcinoma: a retrospective review. Gynecol Oncol 85:53–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. (2000) A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41:1369–79

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zanon C, Clara R, Chiappino I, et al. (2004) Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia for recurrent peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer. World J Surg 28:1040–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rubin SC, Randall TC, Armstrong KA, et al. (1999) Ten-year follow-up of ovarian cancer patients after second-look laparotomy with negative findings. Obstet Gynecol 93:21–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Skates SJ, Xu FJ, Yu YH, et al. (1995) Toward an optimal algorithm for ovarian cancer screening with longitudinal tumor markers. Cancer 76:2004–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hogberg T, Kagedal B (1992) Long-term follow-up of ovarian cancer with monthly determinations of serum CA125. Gynecol Oncol 46:191–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrozzi F, Bova D, De Chiara F, et al. (1998) Thin-section CT follow-up of metastatic ovarian carcinoma correlation with levels of CA-125 marker and clinical history. Clin Imaging 22:364–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Funt SA, Hricak H, Abu-Rustum N, et al. (2004) Role of CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:393–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, et al. (2002) Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 223:495–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gryspeerdt S, Clabout L, Van Hoe L, et al. (1998) Intraperitoneal contrast material combined with CT for detection of peritoneal metastases of ovarian cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 19:434–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rubin SC, Lewis JL Jr (1988) Second-look surgery in ovarian carcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 8:75–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Markus JB, Somers S, O’Malley BP, et al. (1990) Double-contrast barium enema studies: effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 175:155–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fultz PJ, Jacobs CV, Hall WJ, Gottlieb R, et al. (1999) Ovarian cancer: comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans. Radiology 212:401–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sella T, Rosenbaum E, Edelmann DZ, et al. (2001) Value of chest CT scans in routine ovarian carcinoma follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:857–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, et al. (2004) Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: Correlation with histologic findings. Radiology 233:433–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Picchio M, Sironi S, Messa C, et al. (2003) Advanced ovarian carcinoma: usefulness of 18F-FDG-PET in combination with CT for lesion detection after primary treatment. Q J Nucl Med 47:77–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanna I. Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sebastian, S., Lee, S.I., Horowitz, N.S. et al. PET–CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging 33, 112–118 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-007-9218-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-007-9218-0

Keywords

Navigation