F-FDG PET/CT semi-quantitative parameters combined with SCC-Ag in predicting lymph node metastasis in stage I-II cervical cancer.

Cheng-Zhi Jiang, Kai Zheng, Yan-Yin Zhang, Jian Yang, Hui Ye, Xiang Peng
Author Information
  1. Cheng-Zhi Jiang: Department of PET-CT Center, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  2. Kai Zheng: Department of PET-CT Center, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  3. Yan-Yin Zhang: Department of PET-CT Center, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  4. Jian Yang: Department of PET-CT Center, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  5. Hui Ye: Department of PET-CT Center, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  6. Xiang Peng: Department of PET-CT Center, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the value of F-fluordeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-FDG PET/CT) semi-quantitative parameters of primary tumor combined with squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) of cervical cancer (FIGO 2018 stage I-II).
Materials and Methods: A total of 65 patients with stage I-II cervical cancer underwent F-FDG PET/CT were included in our study. Comparing the primary tumor F-FDG PET/CT semi-quantitative parameters and SCC-Ag between the LNM group and the non-LNM group. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were used to analyze the value of F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters and SCC-Ag in predicting LNM.
Results: There were 14 and 51 patients were classified as having LNM and NLNM. The semi-quantitative parameters, including the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), the mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), the peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak), the total lesion glycolysis (TLG), the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) of the tumor and SCC-Ag were all significantly higher in LNM than in NLNM (SUVmax, 16.07 ± 7.81 vs 11.19 ± 4.73, SUVmean, 9.16 ± 3.48 vs 6.29 ± 2.52, SUVpeak, 12.70 ± 5.26 vs 7.65 ± 3.26, MTV, 22.77 ± 12.36 vs 7.09 ± 5.21, TLG, 211.01 ± 154.25 vs 43.38 ± 36.17, SCC-Ag, 5.39 ± 4.56 vs 2.13 ± 2.50, all <0.01). Logistic regression analysis showed that TLG was an independent predictor of LNM in stage I-II cervical cancer (OR 1.032, 95% CI 1.013-1.052, <0.01). Moreover, the predictive value of TLG combined with SUVpeak and SCC-Ag increased and the area under the curve increased compared SUVpeak and SCC-Ag.
Conclusion: F-FDG PET/CT semi-quantitative parameters and SCC-Ag have promise for assessing LNM in stage I-II cervical cancer. TLG of primary tumor provides independent and increasing values in predicting LNM in stage I-II cervical cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:22-36 [PMID: 30306584]
  2. Postgrad Med. 2021 May;133(4):436-443 [PMID: 33620285]
  3. J Clin Med. 2022 Dec 01;11(23): [PMID: 36498716]
  4. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Jan 1;85(1):116-22 [PMID: 22520475]
  5. MAGMA. 2020 Apr;33(2):283-292 [PMID: 31549269]
  6. J Nucl Med. 2021 Aug 1;62(8):1062-1067 [PMID: 33509973]
  7. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):87-93 [PMID: 30389105]
  8. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2020 Sep/Oct;44(5):750-758 [PMID: 32842062]
  9. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2021 Oct;38(5):467-474 [PMID: 34392458]
  10. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424 [PMID: 30207593]
  11. Cancer Imaging. 2020 Mar 6;20(1):21 [PMID: 32143736]
  12. Cancer Imaging. 2020 Sep 10;20(1):63 [PMID: 32912310]
  13. Nucl Med Commun. 2018 Nov;39(11):1045-1052 [PMID: 30204642]
  14. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021 Jan;53(1):305-318 [PMID: 32798280]
  15. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Nov;27(9):1935-1942 [PMID: 28914639]
  16. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):284-90 [PMID: 19157526]
  17. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(9):e2992 [PMID: 26945420]
  18. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Apr;22(4):538-547 [PMID: 33794207]
  19. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Jul;139:117-124 [PMID: 30940428]
  20. Insights Imaging. 2017 Oct;8(5):471-481 [PMID: 28828723]
  21. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):1112-1121 [PMID: 30207790]
  22. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2022 Jun;14(3):287-298 [PMID: 36199994]
  23. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Jan;17(1):64-84 [PMID: 30659131]
  24. Radiology. 2006 Jan;238(1):272-9 [PMID: 16304090]
  25. Eur J Radiol. 2019 Apr;113:153-157 [PMID: 30927941]
  26. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jul;150(1):190-200 [PMID: 29606483]
  27. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Sep 08;14(18): [PMID: 36139543]
  28. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82(3):209-222 [PMID: 28183074]
  29. Nucl Med Commun. 2022 Jan 1;43(1):49-55 [PMID: 34887369]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0±SCC-AgLNMcervicalcancervalueF-FDGPET/CTparametersstageI-IIvssemi-quantitativetumorTLGpredictingSUVpeakprimarycombinedlymphnodemetastasistotalstandardizeduptake72501positronemissiontomography/computedtomographysquamouscell65patientsgroupLogisticregressionmetabolicNLNMSUVmaxSUVmeanlesionglycolysisMTV1643122636<0independent1increasedObjective:exploreF-fluordeoxyglucosecarcinomaantigenFIGO2018MaterialsMethods:underwentincludedstudyComparingnon-LNMreceiveroperatingcharacteristicROCusedanalyzeResults:1451classifiedincludingmaximummeanpeakvolumesignificantlyhigher07811119739486295270227709212111542543381739561350analysisshowedpredictorOR03295%CI013-1052MoreoverpredictiveareacurvecomparedConclusion:promiseassessingprovidesincreasingvaluescarcinoma-antigen

Similar Articles

Cited By