Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer: the role of CT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis secondary to ovarian cancer is a real challenge in the cancer imaging field. In this retrospective study, we evaluate the accuracy of Single Detector Computed Tomography (SDCT), Multi Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT), and Positron Emission Tomography–Computed Tomography with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) in the diagnosis of peritoneal seeding and we evaluate the possible applications of MDCT to predict the complete surgical removal of the peritoneal deposits.

Methods and materials

A total of 228 scans (91 SDCT, 89 MDCT, and 48 [18F]FDG-PET/CT) of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis secondary to ovarian cancer proved at laparoscopy and confirmed by histopathology were retrospectively reviewed by two independent groups of Radiologists and Nuclear Medicine Physicians for the evaluation of ascites, peritoneal nodules, and omental cake signs.

Results

MDCT showed 81% of true positives, SDCT 72.5%, and [18F]FDG-PET/CT 77%. False negatives were 19% for MDCT, 27.5% for SDCT, and 23% for [18F]FDG-PET/CT.

Conclusion

From our results, we concluded that MDCT is the technique of choice in the diagnosis of peritoneal seeding, while [18F]FDG-PET/CT, though showing similar accuracy, remains the most accurate technique for monitoring therapeutic response and disease recurrence. MDCT could play an important role due to its ability to predict the possibility of complete surgical removal of disease thus influencing the treatment plan aimed to improve quality of life.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer Facts and Figs 2009. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society

  2. Johns Hopkins ovarian cancer website. http://ovariancancer.jhmi.edu/menu_understanding.cfm. Accessed 11 September 2009

  3. Ozols RF (2005) Treatment goals in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 5(suppl 1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyers MA (1973) Distribution of intra-abdominal malignant seeding: dependency on dynamics of flow of ascitic fluid. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 119:198–206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz PE (2008) Cytoreductive surgery in the management of ovarian cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 22(9):1025–1033 (discussion 1033–8, 1041,1045)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, et al. (2002) Survival effects of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta analysis. J Clin Oncol 20:1248–1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van der Burg ME (2001) Advanced ovarian cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2:109–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM, et al. (1999) Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis—Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 212:19–27

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE (1993) Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 11(1):166–172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. William MR. Introduction to gynaecologic oncology. www.gyncancer.com/ovarian-cancer.html. Accessed 11 September 2009

  11. Edmonson JH, McCormack GW, Fleming TR, et al. (1985) Comparison of cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin versus hexamethylmelamine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in combination as initial chemotherapy for stage III and IV ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1243–1248

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Omura GA, Brady MF, Homesley HD, et al. (1991) Long follow-up and prognostic factor analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma: the Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol 9:1138–1150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffiths C (1975) Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 42:101–104

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boente MP, Chi DS, Hoskins WJ (1998) The role of surgery in the management of ovarian cancer: primary and interval cytoreductive surgery. Semin Oncol 25:326–334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Prokopf M, Galanski M (2003) Peritoneal Carcinomatosis and Metastases. Spiral and Multislice Computed Tomography of the Body, vol 16, pp 609–610

  16. Forstner R (2007) Radiological staging of ovarian cancer: imaging findings and contribution of CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 17(12):3223–3235 (Epub 2007 Aug)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Delbeke D, Martin WH (2001) Positron emission tomography imaging in oncology. Radiol Clin North Am 39(5):883–917

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hamacher K, Coenen HH, Stocklin G (1988) Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carried-added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-d-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med 29:241–247

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holschneider CH, Berek JS (2000) Ovarian cancer: epidemiology, biology, and prognostic factors. Semin Surg Oncol 19:3–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wimberger P, Lehmann N, Kimmig R, et al. (2007) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group Prognostic factors for complete debulking in advanced ovarian cancer and its impact on survival. An exploratory analysis of a prospectively randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR). Gynecol Oncol 106(1):69–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM (2003) Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 44(9):1407–1412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dromain C, Leboulleux S, Auperin A, et al. (2008) Staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis: enhanced CT vs. PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 33:87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, et al. (2000) Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities—report from the Radiology Oncology Group. Radiology 215:761–767

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Coakley FV, Choi PH, Cougoutas CA, et al. (2002) Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 223:495–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Low RN, Chen SC, Barone R (2003) Distinguishing benign from malignant bowel obstruction in patients with malignancy: findings at MR imaging. Radiology 228(1):157–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kanasaki Y, et al. (2008) Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 18(1):18–23 (Epub 2007 Aug 14)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Cohade C, Fishman EK, Wahl RL (2004) PET-CT in recurrent ovarian cancer: initial observations. Radiographics 24(1):209–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gadducci A, Cosio S (2009) Surveillance of patients after initial treatment of ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol [Epub ahead of print]

  29. Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. (2001) Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol 176:1449–1454

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    L. Funicelli, L. Bonello & M. Bellomi

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    L. L. Travaini & G. Trifirò

  3. Department of Gynaecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    F. Landoni

  4. School of Radiology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    M. Bellomi

Authors
  1. L. Funicelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. L. Travaini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Landoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Trifirò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Bonello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Bellomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Funicelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Funicelli, L., Travaini, L.L., Landoni, F. et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer: the role of CT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 35, 701–707 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9578-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9578-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation