Diagnostic value of PET/CT is similar to that of conventional MRI and even better for detecting small peritoneal implants in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 509-515

  Sanli, Yasemin ^a   Turkmen, Cuneyt ^a   Bakir, Baris ^b   Iyibozkurt, Cem ^c   Ozel, Sevda ^d   Has, Duygu ^a   Yilmaz, Ebru ^a   Topuz, Samet ^c   Yavuz, Ekrem ^a   Unal, Seher Nilgun ^a   Mudun, Ayse ^a  

^a ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b Departments of Radiology   (Turkey)

^c Deparment of Obstetrics and Gynecology   (Turkey)

^d Departments of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics   (Turkey)

Author keywords

2 fluoro 2 deoxy D glucose PET CT; MRI; recurrent ovarian cancer

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVARY CANCER; PERITONEUM; PERITONEUM METASTASIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ABDOMINAL NEOPLASMS; AGED; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PELVIC NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84859422557     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: 14735628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834fc5bf     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. García-Velloso MJ, Jurado M, Ceamanos C, Aramendía JM, Garrastachu MP, López-García G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET in the follow-up of platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34:1396-1405. (Pubitemid 47312579)
2. Omura GA. Gynecologic Oncology Group. Progress in gynecologic cancer research: the Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. Semin Oncol 2008; 35:507-521.
3. Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1550-1559. (Pubitemid 23332443)
4. Kusamura S, Baratti D, Zaffaroni N, Villa R, Laterza B, Balestra MR, Deraco M. Pathophysiology and biology of peritoneal carcinomatosis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2010; 2:12-18.
5. Meyers MA. Distrubution of intraabdominal malignant seeding: dependency on dynamics of flow of ascitic fluid. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1973; 119:198-206.
6. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D. The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy responce in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 2009; 1:64S-73S.
7. Niloff JM, Bast RC Jr, Schaetzl EM, Knapp RC. Predictive value of CA 125 antigen levels in second-look procedures for ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151:981-986. (Pubitemid 15237737)
8. Rustin G, Tuxen M. Use of CA 125 in follow-up of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1996; 348:191-192. (Pubitemid 26238104)
9. Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, Pothuri B, Venkatraman E, Chi D, et al. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 2002; 223:495-499. (Pubitemid 34454332)
10. Forstner R. Radiological staging of ovarian cancer: imaging findings and contribution of CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:3223-3235. (Pubitemid 350142347)
11. Prayer L, Kainz C, Kramer J, Stiglbauer R, Schurawitzki H, Baldt M, et al. CTand MR accuracy in the detection of tumor recurrence in patients treated for ovarian cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17:626-632. (Pubitemid 23206748)
12. Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti KA, Powell CB, Frankel SD, Stern JL. Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology 1995; 197:619-626.
13. Bilici A, Ustaalioglu BB, Seker M, Canpolat N, Tekinsoy B, Salepci T, 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.
14. Richard SD, Bencherif B, Edwards RP, Elishaev E, Krivak TC, Mountz JM, et al. Noninvasive assessment of cell proliferation in ovarian cancer using [(18)F] 30-deoxy-3-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Nucl Med Biol 2011; 38:485-491.
15. Sala E, Kataoka M, Pandit-Taskar N, Ishill N, Mironov S, Moskowitz CS, et al. Recurrent ovarian cancer: use of contrast-enhanced CT and PET/CT to accurately localize tumor recurrence and to predict patients' survival. Radiology 2010; 257:125-134.
16. Pan HS, Lee SL, Huang LW, Chen YK. Combined positron emission tomography-computed tomography and tumor markers for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283:335-341.
17. Palomar A, Nanni C, Castellucci P, Ambrosini V, Montini GC, Allegri V, et al. Value of FDG PET/CT in patients with treated ovarian cancer and raised CA125 serum levels. Mol Imaging Biol 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11307-010- 0468-9.
18. Megibow AJ, Bosniak MA, Ho AG, Beller U, Hulnick DH, Beckman EM. Accuracy of CT in detection of persistent or recurrent ovarian carcinoma: correlation with second-look laparotomy. Radiology 1988; 166:341-345. (Pubitemid 18030736)
19. Rubin SC, Randall TC, Armstrong KA, Chi DS, Hoskins WJ. Ten-year follow-up of ovarian cancer patients after second-look laparotomy with negative findings. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93:21-24.
20. Rubinstein E, Knudsen JB. Clinical aspects of second-look laparotomy in ovarian cancer. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1986; 75:177-179.
21. Gu P, Pan LL,Wu SQ, Sun L, Huang G. CA 125, PET alone, PET-CT, CTand MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71:164-174.
22. 18F]FDG PET as a substitute for second-look laparotomy in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:196-201. (Pubitemid 38173694)
23. Rose PG, Faulhaber P, Miraldi F, Abdul-Karim FW. Positive emission tomography for evaluating a complete clinical responce in patients with ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma: correlation with second-look laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 2:17-21. (Pubitemid 32634948)
24. Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, Zangheri B, Aletti G, Garavaglia E, et al. Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology 2004; 233:433-440. (Pubitemid 39423802)
25. Funicelli L, Travaini LL, Landoni F, Trifiro G, Bonello L, Bellomi M. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer: the role of CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 2010; 35:701-707.
26. Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, Brown DL, Kurtz AB, McNeil BJ. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalitiesreport from the Radiology Oncology Group. Radiology 2000; 215:761-767. (Pubitemid 30346013)
27. Low RN, Saleh F, Song SY, Shiftan TA, Barone RM, Lacey CG, et al. Treated ovarian cancer: comparison of MR imaging withserum CA-125 level and physical examination-a longitudinal study. Radiology 1999; 211: 519-528. (Pubitemid 29206825)
28. Ricke J, Sehouli J, Hach C, Hänninen EL, Lichtenegger W, Felix R. Prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced MRI in the depiction of peritoneal spread in primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:943-949. (Pubitemid 36790585)
29. Kim CK, Park BK, Choi JY, Kim BG, Han H. Detection of recurrent ovarian cancer at MRI: comparison with integrated PET/CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31:868-875. (Pubitemid 350196929)
30. Satoh Y, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, Kimura K, Sou H, Sano K, et al. Diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination: comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, diffusionweighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196:447-453.