Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


This chapter reviews the current and evolving clinical roles of PET/PET in the diagnosis, staging, and restaging of gynecological malignancies. For endometrial and cervical carcinoma, PET has proven useful in both the staging of locally advanced cancer and restaging of the disease. PET plays a unique role assessing response to treatment and prognostication. In advanced ovarian carcinoma PET staging may be of value when chemotherapy is used as the primary treatment prior to surgery. When the serum CA-125 is elevated and conventional imaging is negative or equivocal, previously treated ovarian cancer patients benefit from PET/CT identification of disease. PET/CT aids the management of vulvar and vaginal squamous cell cancer, especially in the detection of nodal metastasis.


Ovarian Cancer Cervical Cancer Endometrial Cancer Cervical Cancer Patient Adnexal Mass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B et al (2005) Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7445–7453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Haim S, Ell P (2009) 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med 50:88–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW et al (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 34:480–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 85:179–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elit L, Bondy SJ, Paszat L et al (2002) Outcomes in surgery for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 87:260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esthappan J, Chaudhari S, Santanam L et al (2008) Prospective clinical trial of positron emission tomography/computed tomography image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy for cervical carcinoma with positive para-aortic lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72:1134–1139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Rositto C et al (2008) A treatment selection protocol for recurrent ovarian cancer patients: the role of FDG-PET/CT and staging laparoscopy. Oncology 75:152–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K et al (2002) Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology 223(3):780–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH et al (2004) Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA 291:2705–2712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenlee RT, Hill Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M (2001) Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 51:15–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grigsby PW (2002) Vaginal cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 3:125–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ et al (2004) Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol 95:546–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iagaru AH, Mittra ES, McDougall IR et al (2008) 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluation of patients with ovarian carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun 29:1046–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Irvin WP, Rice LW, Berkowitz RS (2002) Advances in the management of endometrial adenocarcinoma. J Reprod Med 47:173–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Iyer VR, Lee SI (2010) MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adenexal lesion characterization. Am J Roentgenol 194:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang S, Kim SK, Chung DC et al (2010) Diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET for evaluation of paraaortic nodal metastasis in patients with cervical carcinoma: a metaanalysis. J Nucl Med 51(3):360–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C (2003) Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 180(6):1621–1631Google Scholar
  19. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. Am J Roentgenol 190(6):1652–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2010) Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. Am J Roentgenol 195(3):737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2009) Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer. Eur Radiol 19:1529–1536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kubik-Huch RA, Dörffler W, von Schulthess GK et al (2000) Value of (18F)-FDG positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 10(5):761–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar R, Alavi A (2004) PET imaging in gynecologic malignancies. Radiol Clin North Am 42:1155–1167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamoreaux WT, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F et al (2005) FDG-PET evaluation of vaginal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:733–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir E (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:266–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin LL, Grigsby PW, Powell MA, Mutch DG (2005) Definitive radiotherapy in the management of isolated vaginal recurrences of endometrial cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:500–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin LL, Mutic S, Low DA et al (2007) Adaptive brachytherapy treatment planning for cervical cancer using FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:91–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma SY et al (2003) Delayed 18F-FDG PET for detection of paraaortic lymph node metastatses in cervical cancer patients. J Nucl Med 44:1775–1783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Macdonald DM, Lin LL, Biehl K et al (2008) Combined intensity-modulated radiation therapy and brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:618–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G et al (2004) Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 231(2):372–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mangili G, Picchio M, Sironi S (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 34:658–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nakamura K, Kodama J, Okumura Y et al (2010) The SUVmax of 18F-FDG PET correlates with histological grade in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:110–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oonk MH, de Hullu JA, van der Zee AG (2010) Current controversies in the management of patients with early-stage vulvar cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 22:481–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pandharipande PV, Choy G, del Carmen MG, Gazelle GS, Russell AH, Lee SI (2009) MRI and PET/CT for triaging stage IB clinically operable cervical cancer to appropriate therapy: decision analysis to assess patient outcomes. Am J Roentgenol 192(3):802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pandit-Taskar N (2005) Oncologic imaging in gynecologic malignancies. J Nucl Med 46:1842–1850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK (2001) CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics 21(5):1155–1168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY et al (2008) Clinical impact of positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the posttherapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma: evaluation of 88 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18(6):1332–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patel CN, Nazir SA, Khan Z, Gleeson FV, Bradley KM (2011) 18F-FDG PET/CT of cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 196(5):1225–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:103–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Permuth-Wey J, Sellers TA (2009) Epidemiology of ovarian cancer. Methods Mol Biol 472:413–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ et al (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18:1606–1613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Petignat P, Vajda D, Joris F, Obrist R (2000) Surgical management of epithelial ovarian cancer at community hospitals: a population-based study. J Surg Oncol 75:119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Picchio M, Mangili G, Samanes Gajate AM et al (2010) High-grade endometrial cancer: value of (18F)FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging. Nucl Med Commun 31:506–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pilleron JP, Durand JC, Hamelin JP (1974) Prognostic value of node metastasis in cancer of the uterine cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 119:458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:2813–2821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roman LD, Muderspach LI, Stein SM et al (1997) Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and Doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer. Obstet Gynecol 89:493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB et al (1999) Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1144–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rose PG, Nerenstone S, Brady MF et al (2004) Secondary surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian carcinoma. N Engl J Med 351:2489–2497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, Tuxen MK, Lambert HE (1996) Defining progression of ovarian carcinoma during follow-up according to CA 125: a North Thames Ovary Group study. Ann Oncol 7:361–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH (2003) Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 44(3):347–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sala E, Kataoka M, Pandit-Taskar N et al (2010) Recurrent ovarian cancer: use of contrast-enhanced CT and PET/CT to accurately localize tumor recurrence and to predict patients’ survival. Radiology 257(1):125–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schröder W, Zimny M, Rudlowski C, Büll U, Rath W (1999) The role of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 9(2):117–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schutter EM, Sohn C, Kristen P et al (1998) Estimation of probability of malignancy using a logistic model combining physical examination, ultrasound, serum CA 125, and serum CA 72-4 in postmenopausal women with a pelvic mass: an international multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 69:56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA 298(19):2289–2295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS et al (2008) PET-CT vs CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging 33:112–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ et al (1999) A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 73:177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shah CA, Goff BA, Lowe K, Peters WA 3rd, Li CI (2009) Factors affecting risk of mortality in women with vaginal cancer. Obstet Gynecol 113:1038–1045PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 115:231–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simcock B, Neesham D, Quinn M (2006) The impact of PET/CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 103:271–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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):272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G et al (2004) Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histological findings. Radiology 233:433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Son H, Kositwattanarerk A, Hayes MP et al (2010) PET/CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics 30(5):1251–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sugiyama T, Nishida T, Ushijima K et al.(1995) Detection of lymph node metastasis in ovarian carcinoma and uterine corpus carcinoma by preoperative computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. J Obstet Gynaecol (Tokyo 1995) 21:551–556Google Scholar
  64. van der Burg ME, van Lent M, Buyse M et al (1995) The effect of debulking surgery after induction chemotherapy on the prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecological Cancer Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. N Engl J Med 332:629–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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(12):1936–1943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woelber L, Kock L, Gieseking F, Petersen C, Trillsch F, Choschzick M, Jaenicke F, Mahner S (2011) Clinical management of primary vulvar cancer. Eur J Cancer 47:2315–2321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu X, Matanoski G, Chen VW, Saraiya M, Coughlin SS, King JB, Tao XG (2008) Descriptive epidemiology of vaginal cancer incidence and survival by race, ethnicity, and age in the United States. Cancer 113(10):2873–2882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yen TC, See LC, Lai CH et al (2004a) 18F-FDG uptake in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix is correlated with glucose transporter 1 expression. J Nucl Med 45(1):22–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Yen TC, See LC, Chang TC et al (2004b) Defining the priority of using 18F-FDG PET for recurrent cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 45(10):1632–1639PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K et al (2004) Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol 182(1):227–233Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations