OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society
Oct 22, 2020;20 (1): 75.

Diagnostic value of F-FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with endometrial cancer.

Hideaki Tsuyoshi, Tetsuya Tsujikawa, Shizuka Yamada, Hidehiko Okazawa, Yoshio Yoshida
Author Information
  1. Hideaki Tsuyoshi: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Fukui, 23-3 Matsuoka-Shimoaizuki, Eiheiji-cho, Yoshida-gun, Fukui, 910-1193, Japan. go242h@yahoo.co.jp. ORCID
  2. Tetsuya Tsujikawa: Biomedical Imaging Research Center, University of Fukui, Fukui, Japan.
  3. Shizuka Yamada: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Fukui, 23-3 Matsuoka-Shimoaizuki, Eiheiji-cho, Yoshida-gun, Fukui, 910-1193, Japan.
  4. Hidehiko Okazawa: Biomedical Imaging Research Center, University of Fukui, Fukui, Japan.
  5. Yoshio Yoshida: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Fukui, 23-3 Matsuoka-Shimoaizuki, Eiheiji-cho, Yoshida-gun, Fukui, 910-1193, Japan.
PMID: 33092631 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-00357-4

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative accurate assessment of endometrial cancer can assist in the planning of additional surgical options, and in predicting the prognosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic potential of non-contrast PET/MRI with F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) for assessment in preoperative staging of endometrial cancer.
METHODS: Thirty-six patients with biopsy-proven endometrial cancer underwent preoperative F-FDG PET/MRI, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and pelvic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (ceMRI) for initial staging. The diagnostic performance of F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI for assessing the extent of the primary tumor (T stage), and F-FDG PET/MRI and ceCT for assessing nodal (N stage) and distant (M stage) metastasis, was evaluated by two experienced readers. Histopathological and follow-up imaging results were used as the gold standard. The McNemar test was employed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Accuracy for T status was 77.8 and 75.0% for F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI, respectively. Patient-based accuracy for detecting regional nodal and distant metastasis was 91.3 and 81.8% for F-FDG PET/MRI, and 87.0 and 81.8% for ceCT. None of these parameters was statistically significant (p > 0.05). Lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detecting regional nodal metastasis were 100, 96.9 and 97.0% for F-FDG PET/MRI, and 14.3, 97.6 and 93.3% for ceCT; sensitivity was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Non-contrast F-FDG PET/MRI, which combines the individual advantages of PET and MRI, offers a high diagnostic value equivalent to that of ceMRI for assessment of the primary tumor, and equivalent to that of ceCT for the assessment of nodal and distant metastatic staging, in patients with endometrial cancer. These findings suggest that F-FDG PET/MRI might provide an alternative diagnostic strategy to conventional imaging modalities in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer.

Keywords

18F-FDG PET/MRI Contrast-enhanced CT Contrast-enhanced MRI Endometrial cancer Preoperative staging

References

  1. Ultrasound Q. 2014 Mar;30(1):21-8 [PMID: 24901775]
  2. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Feb;128(2):300-8 [PMID: 23200916]
  3. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):2-30 [PMID: 26645990]
  4. Nucl Med Commun. 2011 Jul;32(7):549-53 [PMID: 21407140]
  5. Eur Radiol. 2009 Jul;19(7):1565-74 [PMID: 19194709]
  6. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jan;45(1):67-76 [PMID: 28840302]
  7. Eur Radiol. 2015 Aug;25(8):2222-30 [PMID: 26017734]
  8. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Apr;57:285-292 [PMID: 30580078]
  9. J Nucl Med. 2016 Jun;57(6):879-85 [PMID: 26823564]
  10. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Oct;82(10):1672-6 [PMID: 23727380]
  11. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1141-9 [PMID: 20966700]
  12. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 Aug;20(6):985-92 [PMID: 20683406]
  13. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017 Nov;43(11):1687-1699 [PMID: 28884883]
  14. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Sep;46(10):2138-2151 [PMID: 31267161]
  15. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 21;(9):CD007585 [PMID: 26387863]
  16. Clin Imaging. 2014 Jul-Aug;38(4):464-469 [PMID: 24642250]
  17. Radiol Med. 2011 Dec;116(8):1288-302 [PMID: 21892714]
  18. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Jan;42(1):56-65 [PMID: 25223420]
  19. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Nov;23(9):1536-43 [PMID: 24172090]
  20. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Dec;42(6):1723-32 [PMID: 25919115]
  21. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Jan;19(1):141-6 [PMID: 19258956]
  22. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4 [PMID: 19367689]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Endometrial Neoplasms
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging
Positron-Emission Tomography
Radiopharmaceuticals
Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Chemicals

Radiopharmaceuticals
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Evaluation Study Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 2

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0PET/MRIF-FDGcancerendometrialstagingceCTassessmentdiagnosticceMRInodalpreoperativepatientsMRIstagedistantmetastasisPreoperativecontrast-enhancedCTassessingprimarytumorTimaging0%accuracydetectingregional3818%statisticallysignificant05sensitivity97valueequivalentContrast-enhancedBACKGROUND:accuratecanassistplanningadditionalsurgicaloptionspredictingprognosisaimpresentstudyevaluatepotentialnon-contrastF-fluorodeoxyglucoseMETHODS:Thirty-sixbiopsy-provenunderwentpelvicdynamicinitialperformanceextentNMevaluatedtwoexperiencedreadersHistopathologicalfollow-upresultsusedgoldstandardMcNemartestemployedstatisticalanalysisRESULTS:Accuracystatus77875respectivelyPatient-based91870Noneparametersp > 0Lesion-basedspecificity100969146933%p < 0CONCLUSIONS:Non-contrastcombinesindividualadvantagesPEToffershighmetastaticfindingssuggestmightprovidealternativestrategyconventionalmodalitiesDiagnostic18F-FDGEndometrial

Similar Articles

Cited By