Advertisement

PET-CT pp 127-142 | Cite as

Gynecologic Neoplasms: Cervical, Ovarian, Vulvar, Uterine, and Endometrial Cancer

  • Bhushan Desai
  • Hossein Jadvar

Abstract

This chapter illustrates clinical case examples demonstrating clinical utility and diagnostic performance of FDG PET-CT scans in gynecologic neoplasms which includes, cervical, ovarian, vulvar, uterine, and endometrial cancers.

Keywords

Cervical Cancer Endometrial Cancer Multiple Sexual Partner Vulvar Cancer Gynecologic Neoplasm 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Chung H, et al. Preoperative [18F] FDG PET/CT maximum standardized uptake value predicts recurrence of uterine cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1467–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kidd E, et al. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in cervical cancer: relationship to prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2108–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryu SY, et al. Detection of early recurrence with 18F FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:347–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakamoto Y, et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1449–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turlakow A, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of 18F FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1407–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Risum S, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer—a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:145–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkill GJ, et al. Significance of tumor calcification in ovarian carcinoma. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:640–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Risum S, et al. Standardized FDG uptake as a prognostic variable and as a predictor of incomplete cytoreduction in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Acta Oncol. 2010;50:415–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horowitz N, et al. Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:546–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazuhiro K, et al. Performance of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:103–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishiyama Y, et al. Monitoring the neoadjuvant therapy response in gynecological cancer patients using FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med. 2008;35:287–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaur H, et al. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1621–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwarz J, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:64S–73S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seung J, et al. CT and MR imaging of ovarian tumors with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Radiographics. 2002;22:1305–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakash P, et al. Role of PET/CT in ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:W464–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lerman H, et al. Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:266–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Subhas N, et al. Imaging of pelvic malignancies with in-line FDG PET–CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. Radiographics. 2005;25:1031–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park J, et al. Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:486–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Picchio M, et al. High-grade endometrial cancer: value of [18F] FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging. Nucl Med Commun. 2010;31:506–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gambir SS, et al. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1S–93S.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhushan Desai
    • 1
  • Hossein Jadvar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations