Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

FDG PET–CT of gynecologic cancers: pearls and pitfalls

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

FDG PET–CT plays an important role in treatment planning and in prognosis assessment of gynecologic cancer patients. Detection of hypermetabolic tissue with FDG PET, when combined with the high spatial resolution of CT, results in improved cancer detection and localization not afforded by either modality independently. This article is a primer for a radiologist performing PET–CT on gynecologic cancer patients and includes the imaging protocol, normal pattern of FDG distribution in the female pelvis and the lymph node drainage pathways from the gynecologic organs. Clinically relevant imaging findings that should be included in the report are discussed. Case examples illustrate how potential errors in exam interpretation can be avoided by concurrently performing a high-quality diagnostic CT with the FDG PET scan and by analyzing both the stand-alone and the fusion images.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, et al. (2005) Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 26(8):671–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gorospe L, Jover-Diaz R, Vicente-Bartulos A (2012) Spectrum of PET-CT pelvic pitfalls in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Abdom Imaging 37(6):1041–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rahmim A, Zaidi H (2008) PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges. Nucl Med Commun 29(3):193–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Surasi DS, Bhambhvani P, Baldwin JA, Almodovar SE, O’Malley JP (2014) (1)(8)F-FDG PET and PET/CT patient preparation: a review of the literature. J Nucl Med Technol 42(1):5–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cronin CG, Prakash P, Blake MA (2010) Oral and IV contrast agents for the CT portion of PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(1):W5–W13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, et al. (2007) Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol 80(954):437–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Senda M, et al. (2011) Preoperative nodal staging of uterine cancer: is contrast-enhanced PET/CT more accurate than non-enhanced PET/CT or enhanced CT alone? Ann Nucl Med 25(7):511–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF (2004) To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45(Suppl 1):56s–65s

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Prabhakar HB, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Mueller PR, Blake MA (2007) Bowel hot spots at PET-CT. Radiographics 27(1):145–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2010) Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(3):737–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu Y (2009) Benign ovarian and endometrial uptake on FDG PET-CT: patterns and pitfalls. Ann Nucl Med 23(2):107–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu Z, Wang B, Cheng W, et al. (2006) Endometrial and ovarian F-18 FDG uptake in serial PET studies and the value of delayed imaging for differentiation. Clin Nucl Med 31(12):781–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, et al. (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45(2):266–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chura JC, Truskinovsky AM, Judson PL, et al. (2007) Positron emission tomography and leiomyomas: clinicopathologic analysis of 3 cases of PET scan-positive leiomyomas and literature review. Gynecol Oncol 104(1):247–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kao CH (2003) FDG uptake in a huge uterine myoma. Clin Nucl Med 28(3):249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ames J, Blodgett T, Meltzer C (2005) 18F-FDG uptake in an ovary containing a hemorrhagic corpus luteal cyst: false-positive PET/CT in a patient with cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(4):1057–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bagga S (2007) A corpus luteal cyst masquerading as a lymph node mass on PET/CT scan in a pregnant woman with an anterior mediastinal lymphomatous mass. Clin Nucl Med 32(8):649–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. (2005) Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 23(36):9329–9337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Connor JP, Andrews JI, Anderson B, Buller RE (2000) Computed tomography in endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 95(5):692–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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):272–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, et al. (2013) MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol 128(2):300–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohn DE, Dehdashti F, Gibb RK, et al. (2002) Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography for the detection of groin node metastases from vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol 85(1):179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, et al. (2003) Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology 227(2):371–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):103–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. (2013) Cervical cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 11(3):320–343

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tirumani SH, Shanbhogue AK, Prasad SR (2013) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of endometrial and cervical carcinomas. Radiol Clin N Am 51(6):1087–1110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barter JF, Soong SJ, Shingleton HM, Hatch KD, Orr JW Jr (1989) Complications of combined radical hysterectomy-postoperative radiation therapy in women with early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 32(3):292–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fiorica JV, Roberts WS, Greenberg H, et al. (1990) Morbidity and survival patterns in patients after radical hysterectomy and postoperative adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 36(3):343–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pandharipande PV, Choy G, del Carmen MG, et al. (2009) MRI and PET/CT for triaging stage IB clinically operable cervical cancer to appropriate therapy: decision analysis to assess patient outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(3):802–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stehman FB, Bundy BN, DiSaia PJ, et al. (1991) Carcinoma of the cervix treated with radiation therapy. I. A multi-variate analysis of prognostic variables in the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer 67(11):2776–2785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Patel CN, Nazir SA, Khan Z, Gleeson FV, Bradley KM (2011) 18F-FDG PET/CT of Cervical Carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 196(5):1225–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 study. Cancer 106(4):914–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I (2004) Posttherapy [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in carcinoma of the cervix: response and outcome. J Clin Oncol 22(11):2167–2171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. (2014) Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 12(2):248–280

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, et al. (2008) Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 109(1):11–18

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frei KA, Kinkel K (2001) Staging endometrial cancer: role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 13(6):850–855

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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):231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Picchio M, Mangili G, Samanes Gajate AM, et al. (2010) High-grade endometrial cancer: value of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging. Nucl Med Commun 31(6):506–512

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Amit A, Schink J, Reiss A, Lowenstein L (2011) PET/CT in gynecologic cancer: present applications and future prospects—a clinician’s perspective. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 38(1):1–21 (vii)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hricak H, Mendelson E, Bohm-Velez M, et al. (2000) Endometrial cancer of the uterus. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 215(Suppl):947–953

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mutch DG, Prat J (2014) 2014 FIGO staging for ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 133(3):401–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Morgan RJ Jr, Alvarez RD, Armstrong DK, et al. (2013) Ovarian cancer, version 2.2013. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 11(10):1199–1209

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, et al. (2008) PET-CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging 33(1):112–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mitchell DG, Javitt MC, Glanc P, et al. (2013) ACR appropriateness criteria staging and follow-up of ovarian cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 10(11):822–827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Boellaard R (2009) Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):11s–20s

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS (2004) An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics 24(2):523–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brechtel K, Klein M, Vogel M, et al. (2006) Optimized contrast-enhanced CT protocols for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT: technical aspects of single-phase versus multiphase CT imaging. J Nucl Med 47(3):470–476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, et al. (2006) Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT. Radiographics 26(5):1335–1353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chen YW, Huang MY, Hou PN, et al. (2009) FDG PET/CT delayed diuretic imaging technique for differentiating invasive pelvic cancer. Clin Nucl Med 34(4):233–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, et al. (2003) Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET with bladder irrigation in patients with uterine and ovarian tumors. J Nucl Med 44(3):353–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Pennsylvania Hospital, University of Pennsylvania Health System, University of Pennsylvania, 800 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Hima B. Prabhakar

  2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Jessica J. Kraeft, James A. Scott & Susanna I. Lee

  3. Gillette Center for Gynecologic Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    John O. Schorge

  4. Department of Radiology, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Jessica J. Kraeft

Authors
  1. Hima B. Prabhakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica J. Kraeft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John O. Schorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James A. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susanna I. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hima B. Prabhakar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prabhakar, H.B., Kraeft, J.J., Schorge, J.O. et al. FDG PET–CT of gynecologic cancers: pearls and pitfalls. Abdom Imaging 40, 2472–2485 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0362-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0362-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation