Advertisement

PET/CT with [18F]FDG in Cervical Cancer

  • Evangelia V. Skoura
  • Ioannis E. Datseris
Chapter

Abstract

Imaging with [18F]FDG-PET/CT is not routinely used for the initial diagnosis of cervical cancer although the primary tumor is generally [18F]FDG avid, because of the lack of precise anatomic information which limits its clinical utility.

References

  1. 1.
    Chung HH, Nam BH, Kim JW, Kang KW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, Kang SB (2010) Preoperative [18F]FDG PET/CT maximum standardized uptake value predicts recurrence of uterine cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1467–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rahman T, Tsujikawa T, Yamamoto M et al (2016) Different prognostic implications of 18F-FDG PET between histological subtypes in patients with cervical cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e3017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haie-Meder C, Mazeron R, Magne N (2010) Clinical evidence on PET-CT for radiation therapy planning in cervix and endometrial cancers. Radiother Oncol 96:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petsuksiri J, Jaishuen A, Pattaranutaporn P, Chansilpa Y (2012) Advanced imaging applications for locally advanced cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13:1713–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoon MS, Ahn SJ, Nah BS, Chung WK, Song HC, Yoo SW, Song JY, Jeong JU, Nam TK (2012) Metabolic response of lymph nodes immediately after RT is related with survival outcome of patients with pelvic node-positive cervical cancer using consecutive [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:e491–e497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin WC, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY (2003) Usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis in advanced cervical cancer with negative computed tomography findings. Gynecol Oncol 89:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeh LS, Hung YC, Shen YY, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC (2002) Detecting para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis by positron emission tomography of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in advanced cervical cancer with negative magnetic resonance imaging findings. Oncol Rep 9:1289–1292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grigsby PW (2005) 4th international cervical cancer conference: update on PET and cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 99(3 suppl 1):S173–S175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, Recker BE, Kison PV, Wahl RL (1999) Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 40:1125–1131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 106:914–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myers ER (2005) FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 97:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim SK, Choi HJ, Park SY et al (2009) Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 45:2103–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y (2010) Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: meta- analysis. Cancer Sci 101:1471–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Roed H, Ottosen C, Lundvall L, Knudsen J, Nedergaard L, Højgaard L, Engelholm SA (2007) The diagnostic value of PET/CT scanning in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 106:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yildirim Y, Sehirali S, Avci ME, Yilmaz C, Ertopcu K, Tinar S, Duman Y, Sayhan S (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 108:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    American College of Radiology (2010) ACR appropriateness criteria. Women’s imaging: staging of invasive cancer of the cervix. http://www.acr.org/. Accessed 20 Mar 2010
  17. 17.
    Kizer NT, Zighelboim I, Case AS, Dewdney SB, Thaker PH, Massad LS (2009) The role of PET/CT in the management of patients with cervical cancer: practice patterns of the members of the society of gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol Oncol 114:310–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kunos C, Radivoyevitch T, Abdul-Karim FW, Faulhaber P (2011) 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography standard uptake value ratio as an indicator of cervical cancer chemoradiation therapeutic response. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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–65SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Veldt AA, Buist MR, van Baal MW, Comans EF, Hoekstra OS, Molthoff CF (2008) Clarifying the diagnosis of clinically suspected recurrence of cervical cancer: impact of 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 49:1936–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 104:529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Domeki Y, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2008) Performance of FDG- PET/CT for diagnosis of recurrent uterine cervical cancer. Eur Radiol 18:2040–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Bettinardi V et al (2007) Post-therapy surveillance of patients with uterine cancers: value of integrated FDG PET/CT in the detection of recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kidd EA, Thomas M, Siegel BA et al (2013) Changes in cervical cancer FDG uptake during chemoradiation and association with response. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mittra E, El-Maghraby T, Rodriguez CA, Quon A, McDougall IR, Gambhir SS, Iagaru A (2009) Efficacy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with recurrent cervical carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:1952–1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jover R, Lourido D, Gonzalez C, Rojo A, Gorospe L, Alfonso JM (2008) Role of PET/CT in the evaluation of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 110(3 suppl 2):S55–S59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentEvangelismos General HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations