High impact of FDG-PET/CT in diagnostic strategies for ovarian cancer

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 340-348

  Zytoon, Ashraf Anas ^a,b   Murakami, Koji ^b   Eid, Hazem ^c   El Gammal, Mahmoud ^c  

^a MENOUFIA UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

^b DOKKYO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c Al Ghad International Colleges for Applied Medical Sciences   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

FDG; Ovarian cancer; PET CT

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSIS; PATHOLOGY; TUMORS;

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC STRATEGY; DISTANT METASTASIS; FDG; GYNECOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES; OVARIAN CANCERS; PATIENT MANAGEMENT; PET-CT;

DISEASES;

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; TUMOR MARKER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; OVARY TUMOR; PATHOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MIDDLE AGED; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84877930386     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/ar.2012.120632     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Maiman M. Laparoscopic removal of the adnexal mass: the case for caution. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995;38: 370-9
2. Osmers R. Sonographic evaluation of ovarian masses and its therapeutical implications. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8: 217-22
3. Alcazar JL, Errasti T, Zornoza A, et al. Transvaginal color Doppler ultrasonography and CA-125 in suspicious adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999;66: 255-61
4. Jacobs I, Bast R. The CA125 tumor associated antigen: A review of the literature. Hum Reprod 1989;4: 1-12
5. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et al. Role of CT and MR imaging in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005;96: 301-6
6. Lai CH, Yen TC, Chang TC. Positron emission tomography imaging for gynecologic malignancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19: 37-41
7. Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, et al. Asymptomatic adnexal masses: Correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2002;223: 780-8
8. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 2004;231: 305-32
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. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182: 227-33
10. Nishizawa S, Inubushi M, Okada H. Physiological 18F-FDG uptake in the ovaries and uterus of healthy female volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32: 549-56
11. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al. Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer. Eur Radiol 2009;19: 1529-36
12. 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. Cancer 2006;106: 914-22
13. Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically early stage cervical cancer: Detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 2006;238: 272-9
14. Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Roed H, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT scanning in patients with cervical cancer: A prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106: 29-34
15. Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, et al. Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108: 486-92
16. Casey MJ, Gupta NC, Muths CK. Experience with positron emission tomography (PET) scans in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1994;53: 331-8
17. Karlan BY, Hawkins R, Hoh C, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose can detect recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51: 175-81
18. Romer W, Avril N, Dose J, et al. Metabolic characterization of ovarian tumors with positron-emission tomography and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Rofo 1997;166: 62-8
19. Schroder W, Zimny M, Rudlowski C, et al. The role of 18Ffluoro- deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1999;9: 117-22
20. Lieberman G, MacLean AB, Buscombe JR, et al. The clinical application of a dual head gamma camera with coincidence detection in 20 women with suspected ovarian cancer. BJOG 2001;108: 1229-36
21. Skírnisdóttir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, et al. Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960-2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 2008;123: 1897-901
22. Risuma S, Høgdall C, Loft A, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer-A prospective study. Gynecologic Oncology 2007;105: 145-9
23. Kerrou K, Montravers F, Grahek D, et al. Detection of recurrence of ovarian cancer using (F-18)-FDG scan performed on a dual head coincidence gamma camera (CDET). Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:186
24. Grisaru D, Almog B, Levine C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in patients with gynecological malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94: 680-4
25. Kim EE. Whole-body positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004;14: 12-22
26. Bristow RE, Giuntoli RL 2nd, Pannu HK, et al. Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99: 294-300
27. Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C, et al. Post-therapy surveillance of patients with uterine cancers: value of integrated FDG PET/CT in the detection of recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007,34: 472-9
28. Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol 2003,90: 519-28
29. Torizuka T, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, et al. Imaging of gynecologic tumors: comparison of (11)C-choline PET with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44: 1051-6
30. Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2001;176: 1449-54
31. Zimny M, Siggelkow W, Schroder W, et al. 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy- d-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83: 310-15
32. Yen RF, Sun SS, Shen YY, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 2001;21: 3691-4
33. Cho SM, Ha HK, Byun JY, et al. Usefulness of FDG PET for assessment of early recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2002;179: 391-5
34. Zhang H, Tian M, Oriuchi N, et al. Oncological diagnosis using positron coincidence gamma camera with fluorodeoxyglucose in comparison with dedicated PET. Br J Radiol 2002;75:409-16