Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET/MRI for Gynecological Malignancies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
PET/MRI in Oncology

  • 1442 Accesses

Abstract

Gynecological malignancies, in particular cervical cancer, are often staged and monitored with a combination of MRI and PET imaging. With hybrid simultaneous systems, there is the potential advantage of improved colocalization and increased imaging efficiency. While there is little evidence as yet, the early studies suggest that PET/MRI performs as well as individual PET/CT and MRI with potential improvements in reader confidence and registration for treatment planning.2-[18F]Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET/MRI has emerged as another diagnostic tool for gynecological cancer in recent years. PET/MRI combines the unique tissue characterization and functional information of MRI with the quantifiable molecular information provided by PET. There are two major ways in which these imaging modalities are combined or fused, namely, hardware based and retrospective software based. Hardware-based image fusion is performed by means of hybrid scanners, which enable the real-time acquisition and fusion of two different imaging modalities within a single device. Retrospective software-based image fusion relies on dedicated software to fuse two separate imaging datasets, most often from CT or MRI and single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) or PET. This technique, called “image registration,” is used to align both sets of data so that each voxel corresponds to the same anatomical landmarks in both images [1]. Integrated systems place solid-state PET detectors, which are compatible with external magnetic fields, inside the MRI gantry, with further details available in Chapter __. The integrated design allows for simultaneous PET and MRI acquisition with advantages such as reduced scanning time, improved co-registration, and simultaneous imaging of dynamic processes visualized on both PET and MRI [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Yankeelov TE, Peterson TE, Abramson RG, et al. Simultaneous PET-MRI in oncology: a solution looking for a problem? Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1342–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenkrantz AB, Friedman K, Chandarana H, et al. Current status of hybrid PET/MRI in oncologic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(1):162–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–403.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Meir H, Kenter GG, Burggraaf J, et al. The need for improvement of the treatment of advanced and metastatic cervical cancer, the rationale for combined chemo-immunotherapy. Anti Cancer Agents Med Chem. 2014;14(2):190–203.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yildirim Y, Sehirali S, Avci ME, et al. Integrated PET/CT for the evaluation of para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer patients with negative conventional CT findings. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(1):154–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Freeman SJ, Aly AM, Kataoka MY, Addley HC, Reinhold C, Sala E. The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1805–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, et al. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7454–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5687–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bourgioti C, Koutoulidis V, Chatoupis K, et al. MRI findings before and after abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART) for cervical cancer: a prospective study and review of the literature. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(7):678–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xue H, Ren C, Yang J, et al. Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for the assessment of local aggressiveness of cervical cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(2):341–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu Y, Liu H, Bai X, et al. Differentiation of metastatic from non-metastatic lymph nodes in patients with uterine cervical cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(1):19–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1577–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myers ER. FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(1):183–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y. 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. 2010;101(6):1471–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology. 2006;238(1):272–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kidd EA, Thomas M, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Changes in cervical cancer FDG uptake during chemoradiation and association with response. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):116–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Herrera FG, Breuneval T, Prior JO, Bourhis J, Ozsahin M. [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters as useful prognostic factors in cervical cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Testa AC, Di Legge A, De Blasis I, et al. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):741–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mittra E, El-Maghraby T, Rodriguez CA, et al. Efficacy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with recurrent cervical carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(12):1952–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayr NA, Wang JZ, Zhang D, et al. Longitudinal changes in tumor perfusion pattern during the radiation therapy course and its clinical impact in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(2):502–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging. 2014;38(4):464–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim SK, Choi HJ, Park SY, et al. Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(12):2103–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Queiroz MA, Kubik-Huch RA, Hauser N, et al. PET/MRI and PET/CT in advanced gynaecological tumours: initial experience and comparison. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(8):2222–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(1):56–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, et al. Simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a comparison to whole-body magnetic resonance imaging alone. Investig Radiol. 2014;49(12):808–15.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ho KC, Lin G, Wang JJ, Lai CH, Chang CJ, Yen TC. Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients measured by 3T diffusion-weighted MRI and SUV from FDG PET/CT in primary cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(2):200–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Baba S, Isoda T, Maruoka Y, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of pretreatment SUV in 18F-FDG/PET in breast cancer: comparison with apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(5):736–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Varoquaux A, Rager O, Lovblad KO, et al. Functional imaging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with diffusion-weighted MRI and FDG PET/CT: quantitative analysis of ADC and SUV. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(6):842–52.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Brandmaier P, Purz S, Bremicker K, et al. Simultaneous [18F]FDG-PET/MRI: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and standardized uptake value (SUV) in primary and recurrent cervical cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141684.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, et al. Correlation of standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient in integrated whole-body PET/MRI of primary and recurrent cervical cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96751.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt H, Brendle C, Schraml C, et al. Correlation of simultaneously acquired diffusion-weighted imaging and 2-deoxy-[18F] fluoro-2-D-glucose positron emission tomography of pulmonary lesions in a dedicated whole-body magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography system. Investig Radiol. 2013;48(5):247–55.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with the standardized uptake value (SUV) in hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lesions: initial results. Rofo. 2013;185(11):1056–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sun H, Xin J, Zhang S, et al. Anatomical and functional volume concordance between FDG PET, and T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI for cervical cancer: a hybrid PET/MR study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(5):898–905.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sorosky JI. Endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(2 Pt 1):383–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Faria SC, Sagebiel T, Balachandran A, Devine C, Lal C, Bhosale PR. Imaging in endometrial carcinoma. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015;25(2):137–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu WJ, Yu MS, Su HY, Lin KS, Lu KL, Hwang KS. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative deep myometrium assessment in endometrial cancer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;52(2):210–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Peungjesada S, Bhosale PR, Balachandran A, Iyer RB. Magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(4):601–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Perego P, Valsecchi MG, Sironi S. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 1.5-T. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):754–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rockall AG, Meroni R, Sohaib SA, et al. Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(1):188–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brunetti J. PET/CT in gynecologic malignancies. Radiol Clin N Am. 2013;51(5):895–911.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ghooshkhanei H, Treglia G, Sabouri G, Davoodi R, Sadeghi R. Risk stratification and prognosis determination using (18)F-FDG PET imaging in endometrial cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):669–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim HJ, Cho A, Yun M, Kim YT, Kang WJ. Comparison of FDG PET/CT and MRI in lymph node staging of endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30(2):104–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kitajima K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Murakami K, Sugimura K. Comparison of DWI and PET/CT in evaluation of lymph node metastasis in uterine cancer. World J Radiol. 2012;4(5):207–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI for staging of endometrial cancer: comparison with (1)(8)F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(10):1672–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stecco A, Buemi F, Cassara A, et al. Comparison of retrospective PET and MRI-DWI (PET/MRI-DWI) image fusion with PET/CT and MRI-DWI in detection of cervical and endometrial cancer lymph node metastases. Radiol Med. 2016;121(7):537–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shih IL, Yen RF, Chen CA, et al. Standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient of endometrial cancer evaluated with integrated whole-body PET/MR: correlation with pathological prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(6):1723–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sharma SK, Nemieboka B, Sala E, Lewis JS, Zeglis BM. Molecular imaging of ovarian cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(6):827–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Morgan RJ Jr, Alvarez RD, Armstrong DK, et al. Ovarian cancer, version 3.2012. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2012;10(11):1339–49.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, et al. Adnexal masses: development and preliminary validation of an MR imaging scoring system. Radiology. 2013;267(2):432–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Michielsen K, Vergote I, Op de Beeck K, et al. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(4):889–901.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim C, Chung HH, Oh SW, Kang KW, Chung JK, Lee DS. Differential diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors from stage I malignant ovarian tumors using FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;47(2):81–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Caobelli F, Alongi P, Evangelista L, et al. Predictive value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in restaging patients affected by ovarian carcinoma: a multicentre study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(3):404–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Vallius T, Peter A, Auranen A, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT can identify histopathological non-responders to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140(1):29–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW, Lewis JS, Laforest R, Siegel BA, Welch MJ. Assessing tumor hypoxia in cervical cancer by PET with 60Cu-labeled diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone). J Nucl Med. 2008;49(2):201–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW, Mintun MA, Lewis JS, Siegel BA, Welch MJ. Assessing tumor hypoxia in cervical cancer by positron emission tomography with 60Cu-ATSM: relationship to therapeutic response-a preliminary report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55(5):1233–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pinker K, Andrzejewski P, Baltzer P, et al. Multiparametric [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose/ [18F]fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging of locally advanced cervical cancer for the non-invasive detection of tumor heterogeneity: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155333.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Cho LP, Kim CK, Viswanathan AN. Pilot study assessing (18)F-fluorothymidine PET/CT in cervical and vaginal cancers before and after external beam radiation. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2015;14:34–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ephraim Parent

  2. Edward Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Vanessa Sanders, Farrokh Dehdashti & Kathryn Fowler

  3. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Vanessa Sanders, Farrokh Dehdashti & Kathryn Fowler

  4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Farrokh Dehdashti & Kathryn Fowler

Authors
  1. Ephraim Parent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farrokh Dehdashti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn Fowler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Fowler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Andrei Iagaru

  2. Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Thomas Hope

  3. Dept. of Nuclear Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Patrick Veit-Haibach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Parent, E., Sanders, V., Dehdashti, F., Fowler, K. (2018). PET/MRI for Gynecological Malignancies. In: Iagaru, A., Hope, T., Veit-Haibach, P. (eds) PET/MRI in Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68517-5_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68517-5_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68516-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68517-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation