Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Present and future of FDG-PET/CT in ovarian cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated FDG-PET/CT has been used successfully for the diagnosis, staging, restaging, therapy monitoring and prognostic prediction of ovarian cancer as well as various other malignant tumors. Compared with conventional PET/non-contrast CT images, combined PET/contrast-enhanced CT images with intravenous iodine contrast medium and sufficient radiation dose may contribute to a more accurate diagnosis with higher confidence. In the future, tracers other than FDG and integrated PET/MRI will be realized. We herein review the place and role of FDG-PET/CT in the management of ovarian cancer, discussing its usefulness and limitations in the imaging of these patients.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishmann EK, O’Neill MJ, Trimble EL, et al. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer. 2000;89:1532–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology. 2006;238:405–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel CN, Goldstone AR, Chowdhury FU, Scarsbrook AF. FDG PET/CT in oncology: “raising the bar”. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:522–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Adusumili S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, Weadock WJ, Murray JP, Johnson TD, et al. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:732–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Booth SJ, Turnbull LW, Poole DR, Richmond I. The accurate staging of ovarian cancer using 3T magnetic resonance imaging—a realistic option. BJOG. 2008;15:894–901.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer—a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Castelluci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:589–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim S, et al. Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Omura GA, Brady MF, Homesley HD, Yordan E, Major FJ, Buchsbaum HJ, et al. Long-term follow-up and prognostic factor analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma: the Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:1138–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ricke J, Sehouli J, Hach C, Hanninen EL, Lichtenegger W, Felix R. Prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced MRI in the depiction of peritoneal spread in primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:943–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1912–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Namimoto T, Awai K, Nakaura T, Yanaga Y, Hirai T, Yamashita Y. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of gynecological diseases. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:745–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kanasaki Y, Kanamori Y, Nakanishi J, Sugihara S, et al. Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan YM, Ng TY, Ngan HY, Wong LC. Quality of life in women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;88:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Celbeke D. The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:64S–73S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Domeki Y, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1439–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hauth EA, Antoch G, Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Veit P, Bosckisch A, et al. Evaluation of integrated whole-body PET/CT in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J of Radiol. 2005;56:263–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Simcock B, Neesham D, Quinn M, Drummond E, Milner A, Hicks RJ. The impact of PET/CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:271–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. Role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in the assessment of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: correlation with clinical or histological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:480–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mangili G, Picchio M, Sironi S, Vigano R, Rabaiotti E, Bornaghi D, et al. Integrated PET/CT as a first-line re-staging modality in patients with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:658–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Thrall MM, DeLoia JA, Gallion H, Avril N. Clinical use of combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:17–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim CK, Park BK, Choi JY, Kim BG, Han H. Detection of recurrent ovarian cancer at MRI: comparison with integrated PET/CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31:868–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, Scott JA, Fischman AJ, Simeone JF, et al. PET-CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Iagaru AH, Mittra ES, McDougall IR, Quon A, Gambhir SS. 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluation of patients with ovarian carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:1046–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Soussan M, Wartski M, Cherel P, Fourme E, Goupil A, Le Stanc E, et al. Impact of FDG PET/CT imaging on the decision making in the biologic suspicion of ovarian carcinoma recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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;112:462–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Makhija S, Howden N, Edwards R, Kelley J, Townsend DW, Meltzer CC. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for the detection of recurrent ovarian and fallopian tube carcinoma: a retrospective review. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:53–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bristow RE, Del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, Cohade C, Zahurak ML, Fishman EK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:519–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, Zangheri B, Aletti G, Garevaglia E, et al. Integrated FDG-PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology. 2004;233:433–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pannu HK, Cohade C, Bristow RE, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT detection of abdominal recurrence of ovarian cancer: radiologic-surgical correlation. Abdom Imaging. 2004;39:398–403.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bristow RE, Giuntoli RL II, Pannu HK, Schulick RD, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rose PG. Surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer. Semin Oncol. 2000;27:17–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gu P, Pan LL, Wu SQ, Sun L, Huang G. CA125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:164–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith GT, Hubner KF, McDonald T, Thie JA. Cost analysis of FDG PET for managing patients with ovarian cancer. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:63–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim S, Chung JK, Kang SB, Kim MH, Jeong JM, Lee DS, et al. [18F]FDG PET as a substitute for second-look laparotomy in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:196–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Kaneishi K, Ohno M, Hata T, Kushida Y, et al. Monitoring the neoadjuvant therapy response in gynecological cancer patients using FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, Naehrig J, Rutke S, Weber WA, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7445–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kurosaki H, Oriuchi N, Okazaki A, Tamaki T, Uki A, Izuta M, et al. Prognostic value of FDG-PET in patients with ovarian carcinoma following surgical treatment. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:171–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, et al. Does the use of diagnostic PET/CT cause stage migration in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:395–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Sugimura K. Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Domeki Y, Kaji Y, Morita S, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent uterine cancer: comparison with PET alone and enhanced CT alone. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:362–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Nakamoto Y, Onishi Y, Sakamoto S, Senda M, et al. Low-dose non-enhanced CT versus full-dose contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for the diagnosis of uterine cancer recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1490–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bunyaviroch T, Turkington TG, Wong TZ, Wilson JW, Colsher JG, Coleman RE. Quantitative effects of contrast enhanced CT attenuation correction on PET SUV measurements. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;10:107–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Jana S, Dadparvar S. Positron emission tomography in gynaecological malignancies. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2006;6:1033–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, Ozawa N, Torii K, Umesaki N, et al. Evaluation of 18FDG PET with bladder irrigation in patients with uterine and ovarian tumors. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:353–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Belhocine T, Thille A, Fridman V, Albert A, Seidel L, Nickers P, et al. Contribution of whole-body 18FDG PET imaging in the management of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:90–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Prakash P, Cronin CG, Blake MA. PET/CT in ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:W464–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim SK, Kang KW, Roh JW, Sim JS, Lee ES, Park SY. Incidental ovarian 18F-FDG accumulation on PET: correlation with the menstrual cycle. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:757–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Domingues RC, Carneiro MP, Lopes FCR, Domingues RC, Fonseca LMB, Gasparetto EL. Whole-body MRI and FDG PET fused images for evaluation of patients with cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1012–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Tsujikawa T, Okazawa H, Kotsuji F. Positron emission tomography in ovarian cancer: 18F-deoxy-glucose and 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol(FES) PET. J Ovarian Res. 2009;2:7–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Torizuka T, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, Okada H, Yoshikawa E, Nakamura F, et al. Imaging of gynaecologic tumor: comparison of 11C-Choline PET with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1051–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Ludemann L, Sreenivasa G, Amthauer H, Michel R, Gellermann J, Wust P. Use of H 152 O-PET for investigating perfusion changes in pelvic tumors due to regional hyperthermia. Int J Hyperth. 2009;25:299–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Antoch G, Bockisch A. Combined. PET/MRI: a dimension of whole-body oncology imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:S113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pichler BJ, Kolb A, Nagele T, Schlemmer HP. PET/MRI: paving the way for the next generation of clinical multimodality imaging applications. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:333–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Kolb A, Judenhofer MS. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging? Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:199–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of PET Diagnosis, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, 2-2 Minatojima-Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan

    Kazuhiro Kitajima

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Koji Murakami

  3. PET Center, Dokkyo Medical University Hospital, Mibu, Japan

    Setsu Sakamoto

  4. Department of Radiology, Dokkyo University School of Medicine, Mibu, Japan

    Yasushi Kaji

  5. Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan

    Kazuro Sugimura

Authors
  1. Kazuhiro Kitajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koji Murakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Setsu Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yasushi Kaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kazuro Sugimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuhiro Kitajima.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kitajima, K., Murakami, K., Sakamoto, S. et al. Present and future of FDG-PET/CT in ovarian cancer. Ann Nucl Med 25, 155–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-010-0449-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-010-0449-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation