Relationship among glycolytic phenotype, grade, and histological subtype in ovarian carcinoma

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 49-53

  Karantanis, Dimitrios ^a   Allen Auerbach, Martin ^a   Czernin, Johannes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

F 18 FDG; Glycolytic phenotype; Histologic grade; Ovarian cancer; PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DRUG UPTAKE; FEMALE; GLYCOLYSIS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVARY CARCINOMA; PHENOTYPE;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84856499080     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182291e03     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2010. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2010.
2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225-249.
3. Crum C. The female genital tract. In: Kumar V, Fausto N, Abbas AK, et al, eds. Robbins & Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc; 2005.
4. Young RH, Clement PB, Scully RE. The ovary. In: Sternberg SS, Antonioli DA, Mills SE, et al, eds. Diagnostic Surgical Pathology. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1994.
5. Bragg DG, Hricak H. Imaging in gynecologic malignancies. Cancer. 1993;71(suppl 4):1648-1651. (Pubitemid 23056085)
6. Stephen C. Rubin PS, Viswanathan AN. Ovarian cancer. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 12th ed. Available at: cancernetwork.com. 2009.
7. Togashi K. Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(suppl 4): L87-L104. (Pubitemid 38008300)
8. Forstner R, Sala E, Kinkel K, et al. ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2773-2780.
9. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR. 2004;182:227-233. (Pubitemid 38017747)
10. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur JNucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1912-1920.
11. Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:166-179. (Pubitemid 36859496)
12. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA, et al. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: a lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:603-607. (Pubitemid 41716404)
13. Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer-a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:145-149. (Pubitemid 46454333)
14. Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, et al. Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:389-394.
15. Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:589-595. (Pubitemid 47067045)
16. Hubner KF, McDonald TW, Niethammer JG, et al. Assessment of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[18F]deoxyglucose (2-[18F]FDG). Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:197-204.
17. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7445-7453. (Pubitemid 46291806)
18. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, et al. 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.
19. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Kanenishi K, et al. Monitoring the neoadjuvant therapy response in gynecological cancer patients using FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:287-295.
20. Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR. 2001;176:1449-1454. (Pubitemid 32510262)
21. Bilici A, Ustaalioglu BB, Seker M, et al. Clinical value of FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: is there an impact of FDG PET/CT on patient management? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1259-1269.
22. Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, et al. PET-CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:112-118.
23. Bhosale P, Peungjesada S, Wei W, et al. Clinical utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer in the setting of normal CA-125 levels. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:936-944.
24. Kurokawa T, Yoshida Y, Kawahara K, et al. Expression of GLUT-1 glucose transfer, cellular proliferation activity and grade of tumor correlate with [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography in epithelial tumors of the ovary. Int J Cancer. 2004;109:926-932. (Pubitemid 38500750)
25. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, et al. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR. 2010;195:310-320.
26. Cho SM, Park YG, Lee JM, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: in comparison with vascularity, Ki-67, p53, and histologic grade. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:409-417. (Pubitemid 46140312)
27. Cantuaria G, Magalhaes A, Penalver M, et al. Expression of GLUT-1 glucose transporter in borderline and malignant epithelial tumors of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:33-37.
28. Ozcan A, Deveci MS, Oztas E, et al. Prognostic value of GLUT-1 expression in ovarian surface epithelial tumors: a morphometric study. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2005;27:181-186. (Pubitemid 41233493)
29. Macheda ML, Rogers S, Best JD. Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2005;202:654-662. (Pubitemid 40175840)
30. Dierckx RA, Van de Wiele C. FDG uptake, a surrogate of tumour hypoxia? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1544-1549.
31. Tsukioka M, Matsumoto Y, Noriyuki M, et al. Expression of glucose transporters in epithelial ovarian carcinoma: correlation with clinical characteristics and tumor angiogenesis. Oncol Rep. 2007;18:361-367.