Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Uterine Cervical Cancer with FDG-PET/CT: Direct Comparison with PET

  • Brief Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and PET/computed tomography (CT) for certainty of image interpretation and for diagnostic accuracy in patients with primary and metastatic uterine cervical cancer.

Materials and Methods

Images of 13 patients with cervical cancer having PET/CT examinations were reviewed retrospectively. PET and PET/CT images of all cases were read blindly and randomly by two readers. Foci of increased FDG uptake on PET or PET/CT were classified using a scoring system regarding lesion localization and characterization. PET and PET/CT findings were assessed with all clinical information available, and diagnostic accuracy was determined on a per-lesion and on a per-patient basis.

Results

For both readers, PET/CT provided significantly higher frequencies of definite lesion localization (>30% higher) and definite lesion characterization (>20% higher) compared to the findings on PET alone. The improvement in lesion localization to the definite level by PET/CT provided the definite lesion characterization in at least 50% of cases. PET/CT tended to exhibit higher diagnostic accuracy than PET alone on a lesion-based analysis (92% vs. 78% in reader 1 and 92% vs. 82% in reader 2, respectively). Metastatic disease spread was, however, almost equally evaluated between PET and PET/CT.

Conclusion

PET/CT was demonstrated to be useful in the definite localization and characterization of foci of increased FDG uptake, which provided its higher diagnostic accuracy than PET alone. PET/CT appears preferable to PET in the evaluation of cervical cancer, although additional study is needed.

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

References

  1. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J et al (2001) A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 42(suppl 1):1S–93S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, Recker BE, Kison PV, Wahl RL (1999) Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 40:1125–1131

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, Faulhaber PF, Abdul-Karim FW, Miraldi F (1999) Positron emission tomography for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol 17:41–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F (2001) Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 19:3745–3749

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nakamoto Y, Eisbruch A, Achtyes ED et al (2002) Prognostic value of positron emission tomography using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 84:289–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh AK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, Siegel BA (2003) FDG-PET lymph node staging and survival of patients with FIGO stage IIIb cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:489–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T et al (2000) A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41:1369–1379

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF et al (2003) Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348:2500–2507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT et al (2003) Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 229:526–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL (2003) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797–1803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tateishi U, Maeda T, Morimoto T, Miyake M, Arai Y, Kim EE (2007) Non-enhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for nodal staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1627–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35(8):1439–1448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 601 North Caroline Street, Room 3223A, Baltimore, MD, 21287-0817, USA

    Mitsuaki Tatsumi, Christian Cohade & Richard L. Wahl

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 601 North Caroline Street, Room 3223A, Baltimore, MD, 21287-0817, USA

    Robert E. Bristow

Authors
  1. Mitsuaki Tatsumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Cohade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert E. Bristow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard L. Wahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Wahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tatsumi, M., Cohade, C., Bristow, R.E. et al. Imaging Uterine Cervical Cancer with FDG-PET/CT: Direct Comparison with PET. Mol Imaging Biol 11, 229–235 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-008-0180-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-008-0180-1

Key words

Search

Navigation