PET/CT Evaluation of cervical cancer: Spectrum of disease

Radiographics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1251-1268

  Son, Hongju ^a   Kositwattanarerk, Arpakorn ^a   Hayes, Monica P ^a   Chuang, Linus ^a   Rahaman, Jamal ^a   Heiba, Sherif ^a   Machac, Josef ^a   Zakashansky, Konstantin ^a   Kostakoglu, Lale ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE SUBTRACTION; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; METHODOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INTERNATIONALITY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 77957732426     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.305105703     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58(2):71-96.
2. Plummer M, Franceschi S. Strategies for HPV prevention. Virus Res 2002;89(2):285-293.
3. Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radio-Graphics 2001;21(5):1155-1168.
4. Scheidler JJ, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1997;278(13):1096-1101.
5. Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91(1):59-66.
6. Gold MA. PET in cervical cancer: implications for 'staging,' treatment planning, assessment of prognosis, and prediction of response. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2008;6(1):37-45.
7. Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. RadioGraphics 2004;24(2): 523-543.
8. Townsend DW, Cherry SR. Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol 2001;11(10):1968-1974.
9. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. To enhance or not to enhance? 18FFDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45(suppl 1): 56S-65S.
10. Follen M, Levenback CF, Iyer RB, et al. Imaging in cervical cancer. Cancer 2003;98(9 suppl): 2028-2038.
11. Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Cohade C, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT in recurrent ovarian cancer: initial observations. RadioGraphics 2004;24(1): 209-223.
12. Wahl RL, Buchanan JW, eds. Principles and practice of positron emission tomography. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002.
13. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, et al. Wholebody positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(6):1555-1560.
14. Kaur H, Loyer EM, Minami M, Charnsangavej C. Patterns of uterine enhancement with helical CT. Eur J Radiol 1998;28(3):250-255.
15. Dizendorf EV, Treyer V, Von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Application of oral contrast media in coregistered positron emission tomography-CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(2):477-481.
16. Eifel PJ, Berek JS, Thigpen JT. Cancer of the cervix, vagina, and vulva. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1997; 1433-1475.
17. Pecorelli S; FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(2):103-104.
18. 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):154-159.
19. Park W, Park YJ, Huh SJ, et al. The usefulness of MRI and PET imaging for the detection of parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2005; 35(5):260-264.
20. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(36):9329-9337.
21. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Women's imaging: staging of invasive cancer of the cervix. American College of Radiology. http://www.acr.org/. Accessed March 20, 2010.
22. Wright JD, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, et al. Preoperative lymph node staging of early-stage cervical carcinoma by [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucosepositron emission tomography. Cancer 2005;104 (11):2484-2491.
23. Hricak H. Role of imaging in the evaluation of pelvic cancer. Important Adv Oncol 1991:103-133.
24. Vick CW, Walsh JW, Wheelock JB, Brewer WH. CT of the normal and abnormal parametria in cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143(3):597-603.
25. Walsh JW. Computed tomography of gynecologic neoplasms. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30(4): 817-830.
26. Grigsby PW. The contribution of new imaging techniques in staging cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107(1 suppl 1):S10-S12.
27. Showalter TN, Miller TR, Huettner P, Rader J, Grigsby PW. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and pathologic tumor size in early-stage invasive cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19(8):1412-1414.
28. Pandharipande PV, Choy G, del Carmen MG, Gazelle GS, Russell AH, Lee SI. MRI and PET/CT for triaging stage IB clinically operable cervical cancer to appropriate therapy: decision analysis to assess patient outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192 (3):802-814.
29. 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):1577-1587.
30. 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):5687-5694.
31. DiSaia PJ, Gall S, Levy D, Bundy B. Gynecologic cancer. In: Terry W, Rosenberg E, eds. Immunology of human cancer. Vol 8. New York, NY: Elsevier/ North Holland Biomedical Press, 1982; 331-335.
32. Grigsby PW. 4th International Cervical Cancer Conference: update on PET and cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99(3 suppl 1):S173-S175.
33. Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, Recker BE, Kison PV, Wahl RL. Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 1999;40(7): 1125-1131.
34. Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 2006;106(4):914-922.
35. Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myers ER. FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005;97(1):183-191.
36. 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):2103-2109.
37. 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 Feb 11. [Epub ahead of print]
38. Heron CW, Husband JE, Williams MP, Dobbs HJ, Cosgrove DO. The value of CT in the diagnosis of recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Radiol 1988; 39(5):496-501.
39. Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH. Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003; 44(3):347-352.
40. Bodurka-Bevers D, Morris M, Eifel PJ, et al. Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcomes analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2): 187-193.
41. Brooks RA, Powell MA. Novel imaging modalities in gynecologic cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2009;11(6): 466-472.
42. Fulcher AS, O'Sullivan SG, Segreti EM, Kavanagh BD. Recurrent cervical carcinoma: typical and atypical manifestations. RadioGraphics 1999;19(spec no):S103-S116.
43. Chung HH, Kim SK, Kim TH, et al. Clinical impact of FDG-PET imaging in post-therapy surveillance of uterine cervical cancer: from diagnosis to prognosis. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103(1):165-170.
44. Havrilesky LJ, Wong TZ, Secord AA, Berchuck A, Clarke-Pearson DL, Jones EL. The role of PET scanning in the detection of recurrent cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90(1):186-190.
45. Unger JB, Ivy JJ, Connor P, et al. Detection of recurrent cervical cancer by whole-body FDG PET scan in asymptomatic and symptomatic women. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94(1):212-216.
46. Grigsby PW. The role of FDG-PET/CT imaging after radiation therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107 (1 suppl 1):S27-S29.
47. Belhocine T, Thille A, Fridman V, et al. Contribution of whole-body 18FDG PET imaging in the management of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;87 (1):90-97.
48. Hoh JK, Choi JS, Lee JH, Lee KW, Han JS, Lee EJ. Repeat laparoscopic paraaortic lymphadenectomy for an isolated lymph node recurrence in a patient with stage IB2 cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16(6):781-784.
49. Friedlander M, Grogan M; U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Guidelines for the treatment of recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Oncologist 2002;7(4):342-347.
50. Lai CH, Huang KG, See LC, et al. Restaging of recurrent cervical carcinoma with dual-phase [18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2004;100(3):544-552.
51. Shin MS, Shingleton HM, Partridge EE, Nicolson VM, Ho KJ. Squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: patterns of thoracic metastases. Invest Radiol 1995;30(12):724-729.
52. Malviya VK, Casselberry JM, Parekh N, Deppe G. Pericardial metastases in squamous cell cancer of the cervix: a report of two cases. J Reprod Med 1990;35(1):49-52.
53. Ando K, Kashihara KI, Harada M, et al. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix with myocardial metastasis. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65(1):169-172.
54. Jover R, Lourido D, Gonzalez C, Rojo A, Gorospe L, Alfonso JM. Role of PET/CT in the evaluation of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110(3 suppl 2):S55-S59.
55. Husain A, Akhurst T, Larson S, Alektiar K, Barakat RR, Chi DS. A prospective study of the accuracy of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) in identifying sites of metastasis prior to pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 106(1):177-180.
56. Liu FY, Yen TC, Chen MY, et al. Detection of hematogenous bone metastasis in cervical cancer: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2009;115(23):5470-5480.
57. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Mutch DG. Posttherapy surveillance monitoring of cervical cancer by FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55(4):907-913.
58. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(17):3745-3749.
59. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA 2007;298(19):2289-2295.
60. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D. The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 2009;50(suppl 1):64S-73S.
61. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Metabolic monitoring of advanced uterine cervical cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy by using [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: preliminary results in three patients. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95(3):597-602.
62. Lee YY, Choi CH, Kim CJ, et al. The prognostic significance of the SUVmax (maximum standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose) of the cervical tumor in PET imaging for early cervical cancer: preliminary results. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 115(1):65-68.
63. Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34(2):122-133.
64. Subhas N, Patel PV, Pannu HK, Jacene HA, Fishman with in-line FDG PET-CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. RadioGraphics 2005;25 (4):1031-1043.
65. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir E. Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in preand postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45(2):266-271.
66. Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, et al. Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PETCT. RadioGraphics 2006;26(5):1335-1353.
67. Ho KC, Ng KK, Yen TC, Chou HH. An ovary in luteal phase mimicking common iliac lymph node metastasis from a primary cutaneous peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumour as revealed by 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Br J Radiol 2005;78(928):343-345.
68. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Sugimura K. Standardized uptake values of uterine leiomyoma with 18F-FDG PET/CT: variation with age, size, degeneration, and contrast enhancement on MRI. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22(6):505-512.
69. Choudhary S, Fasih N, Mc Innes M, Marginean C. Imaging of ovarian teratomas: appearances and complications. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009; 53(5):480-488.
70. Anzai Y, Carroll WR, Quint DJ, et al. Recurrence of head and neck cancer after surgery or irradiation: prospective comparison of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluorod-glucose PET and MR imaging diagnoses. Radiology 1996;200(1):135-141.