Advertisement

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

  • Evangelia V. Skoura
  • Ioannis E. Datseris
Chapter

Abstract

The role of [18F]FDG-PET/CT for differentiating between malignant and benign ovarian tumors remains controversial, and false-negative and false-positive cases have been reported. Concerning the prognostic value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT, there have been reports that a high (>13.15) pretreatment SUVmax of the primary tumor in patients with ovarian cancer was associated with a poor prognosis [1]. The SUVmax of the primary tumor had a statistically significant association with stage (p = 0.010) and histology (p = 0.001) [1].

References

  1. 1.
    Nakamura K, Hongo A, Kodama J, Hiramatsu Y (2012) The pretreatment of maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary tumor is predictor for poor prognosis for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Acta Med Okayama 66:53–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yuan Y, Gu ZX, Tao XF, Liu SY (2012) Computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 81:1002–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelluci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C et al (2007) 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 28:589–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, Tsuchida T, Okazawa H, Fujibayashi Y, Yonekura Y, Kotsuji F (2004) Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/ contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:1912–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee SI, Catalano OA, Dehdashti F (2015) Evaluation of gynecologic cancer with MR imaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med 56:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Du XL, Jiang T, Sheng XG, Li QS, Wang C, Yu H (2012) PET/CT scanning guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy in treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol 81:3551–3556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Kaneishi K, Ohno M, Hata T, Kushida Y et al (2008) Monitoring the neoadjuvant therapy response in gynecological cancer patients using FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, Kang SB, Lee HP (2007) 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 34:480–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hauth EA, Antoch G, Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Veit P, Bosckisch A et al (2005) Evaluation of integrated whole-body PET/CT in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol 56:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nanni C, Rubello D, Farsad M, De Iaco P, Sansovini M, Erba P et al (2005) 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective study on forty-one patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:792–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simcock B, Neesham D, Quinn M, Drummond E, Milner A, Hicks RJ (2006) The impact of PET/CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 103:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mangili G, Picchio M, Sironi S, Vigano R, Rabaiotti E, Bornaghi D et al (2007) Integrated PET/CT as a first-line re-staging modality in patients with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:658–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thrall MM, DeLoia JA, Gallion H, Avril N (2007) Clinical use of combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 105:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Choi JY, Kim BG, Han H (2007) Detection of recurrent ovarian cancer at MRI: comparison with integrated PET/CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:868–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, Scott JA, Fischman AJ, Simeone JF et al (2008) PET-CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging 33:112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iagaru AH, Mittra ES, McDougall IR, Quon A, Gambhir SS (2008) 18FFDG PET/CT evaluation of patients with ovarian carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun 29:1046–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soussan M, Wartski M, Cherel P, Fourme E, Goupil A, Le Stanc E et al (2008) Impact of FDG PET/CT imaging on the decision making in the biologic suspicion of ovarian carcinoma recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 108:160–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fulham MJ, Carter J, Baldey A, Hicks RJ, Ramshaw JE, Gibson M (2009) 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 112:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makhija S, Howden N, Edwards R, Kelley J, Townsend DW, Meltzer CC (2002) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for the detection of recurrent ovarian and fallopian tube carcinoma: a retrospective review. Gynecol Oncol 85:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bristow RE, DelCarmen MG, Pannu HK, Cohade C, Zahurak ML, Fishman EK et al (2003) Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol 90:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, Zangheri B, Aletti G, Garevaglia E et al (2004) Integrated FDG-PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology 233:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torizuka T, Nobezawa S, Kanno T et al (2002) Ovarian cancer recurrence: role of whole-body positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu P, Pan LL, Wu SQ, Sun L, Huang G (2009) CA125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 71:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T et al (2001) Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol 176:1449–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prakash P, Cronin CG, Blake MA (2010) Role of PET/CT in ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:W464–W470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antunovic L, Cimitan M, Borsatti E et al (2012) Revisiting the clinical value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinomas: correlation with histology, serum CA-125 assay, and conventional radiological modalities. Clin Nucl Med 37:e184–e188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Sakamoto S, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2011) Present and future of FDG-PET/CT in ovarian cancer. Ann Nucl Med 25:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Son H, Khan SM, Rahaman J, Cameron KL, Prasad-Hayes M, Chuang L, Machac J, Heiba S, Kostakoglu L (2011) Role of FDG PET/CT in staging of recurrent ovarian cancer. Radiographics 31:569–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zimny M, Siggelkow W, Schruder W et al (2001) 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 83:310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evangelista L, Palma MD, Gregianin M et al (2015) Diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and its correlation with serum cancer antigen-125 (CA125) in a large cohort of ovarian cancer patients. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 16:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanli Y, Turkmen C, Bakir B, Iyibozkurt C, Ozel S, Has D, Yilmaz E, Topuz S, Yavuz E, Unal SN, Mudun A (2012) Diagnostic value of PET/CT is similar to that of conventional MRI and even better for detecting small peritoneal implants in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Nucl Med Commun 33:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chung HH, Kwon HW, Kang KW et al (2012) Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:1966–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentEvangelismos General HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations