Diagnostic Value of F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in the Preoperative Evaluation of Uterine Carcinosarcoma.

Soyoung Kim, Young Tae Kim, Sunghoon Kim, Sang Wun Kim, Jung-Yun Lee, Won Jun Kang
Author Information
  1. Soyoung Kim: 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722 South Korea.
  2. Young Tae Kim: 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  3. Sunghoon Kim: 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  4. Sang Wun Kim: 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  5. Jung-Yun Lee: 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  6. Won Jun Kang: 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722 South Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative evaluation of uterine carcinosarcoma.
METHODS: Fifty-four women with pathologically confirmed uterine carcinosarcoma who underwent preoperative FDG PET/CT and MRI from June 2006 to November 2016 were included. Pathologic findings from primary tumor lesions, para-aortic and pelvic lymph node (LN) areas, and peritoneal seeding lesions were compared with the FDG PET/CT and MRI findings. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumor and LN was obtained. The tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR) was calculated by dividing the SUVmax of the primary tumor or LN by the mean SUV of the liver.
RESULTS: For detecting primary tumor lesions ( = 54), the sensitivity and accuracy of FDG PET/CT (53/54) and MRI (53/54) were 98.2%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT versus MRI were as follows: 63.2% (12/19) versus 26.3% (5/19), 100% (35/35) versus 100% (35/35), and 87.0% versus 74.0%, respectively, for pelvic LN areas ( = 0.016); 85.7% (12/14) versus 42.9% (6/14), 90% (36/40) versus 97.5% (39/40), and 88.9% versus 83.3%, respectively, for para-aortic LN areas ( = 0.004); and 59.4% (19/32) versus 50% (16/32), 100% (22/22) versus 100% (22/22), and 75.9% versus 70.4%, respectively, for peritoneal seeding lesions ( = 0.250). For distant metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT were 100 (8/8), 97.8 (45/46), and 98.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET/CT showed superior diagnostic accuracy compared to MRI in detecting pelvic and para-aortic LN metastasis in patients with uterine carcinosarcoma. Moreover, FDG PET/CT facilitated the identification of distant metastasis.

Keywords

References

  1. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jul;112(1):64-70 [PMID: 18591309]
  2. Oncology. 2004;67(1):33-9 [PMID: 15459493]
  3. Ann Nucl Med. 2016 Feb;30(2):104-13 [PMID: 26546334]
  4. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jun;137(3):581-8 [PMID: 25805398]
  5. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Mar;108(3):486-92 [PMID: 18201753]
  6. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;140(3):409-14 [PMID: 26777990]
  7. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011 Sep;23(5):531-6 [PMID: 21743326]
  8. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Jul;28(1):128-35 [PMID: 18581404]
  9. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4 [PMID: 19367689]
  10. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Mar;35(3):484-92 [PMID: 17952435]
  11. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan-Feb;64(1):9-29 [PMID: 24399786]
  12. Clin Nucl Med. 2014 Sep;39(9):803-5 [PMID: 24152629]
  13. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Oct;111(1):82-8 [PMID: 18674808]
  14. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015 Apr;94(1):98-104 [PMID: 25468677]
  15. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Jan-Feb;17(1):215-9 [PMID: 17291256]
  16. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Feb;25(2):279-87 [PMID: 25611900]
  17. Radiology. 2001 Mar;218(3):776-82 [PMID: 11230656]
  18. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Feb;16(2):170-199 [PMID: 29439178]
  19. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Feb 13;: [PMID: 29437265]
  20. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;28(4):e43 [PMID: 28541634]
  21. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2015 Nov;16(11):53 [PMID: 26374341]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0versusPET/CTFDGMRILNcarcinosarcomaprimarytumorlesionsaccuracy100%respectivelyuterinepara-aorticpelvicareassensitivity2% = 09%metastasisdiagnosticvalueemissiontomographyresonanceimagingpreoperativefindingsperitonealseedingcomparedSUVmaxdetecting53/5498specificity3%35/350%974%22/22distantUterinePURPOSE:studyaimedcompareF-fluorodeoxyglucosepositrontomography/computedmagneticevaluationMETHODS:Fifty-fourwomenpathologicallyconfirmedunderwentJune2006November2016includedPathologiclymphnodemaximumstandardizeduptakeobtainedtumor-to-liverratioTLRcalculateddividingmeanSUVliverRESULTS: = 54follows:6312/19265/198774016857%12/14426/1490%36/405%39/4088830045919/3250%16/3275702501008/8845/46CONCLUSIONS:showedsuperiorpatientsMoreoverfacilitatedidentificationDiagnosticValueF-FDGPreoperativeEvaluationCarcinosarcoma18F-FluorodeoxyglucoseMagneticPositron

Similar Articles

Cited By