M Picchio, S Sironi, C Messa, G Mangili, C Landoni, L Gianolli, B Zangheri, R Viganò, G Aletti, P De Marzi, F De Cobelli, A Del Maschio, A Ferrari, F Fazio
{"title":"Advanced ovarian carcinoma: usefulness of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with CT for lesion detection after primary treatment.","authors":"M Picchio, S Sironi, C Messa, G Mangili, C Landoni, L Gianolli, B Zangheri, R Viganò, G Aletti, P De Marzi, F De Cobelli, A Del Maschio, A Ferrari, F Fazio","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the additional value of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with computed tomography (CT) over CT used alone, for evaluating ovarian cancer patients after primary treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-five women (mean age: 53.6 years) had primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy for histologically proven ovarian carcinoma. At initial diagnosis, the tumor types were papillary serous adenocarcinoma (n=20), endometroid carcinoma (n=3), mixed mullerian tumor (n=1), and granulosa cell tumor (n=1). All patients underwent [(18)F]FDG-PET and contrast enhanced CT examinations, within 30 days of the completion of chemotherapic treatment. [(18)F]FDG-PET images were interpreted with the knowledge of CT findings (PET+CT); conversely, CT images were evaluated with no knowledge of the [(18)F]FDG-PET results. Within 7 day of imaging studies, 2(nd)-look laparoscopy (n=7) or laparotomy (n=18) was performed for histological confirmation. In all cases, imaging findings were then correlated with results of histopathologic examination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 23 neoplastic viable lesions, all histologically confirmed, 16 could be detected by CT alone and 19 by PET+CT. An inflammatory lymph-node was misdiagnosed as viable tumor with both PET+CT and CT alone; an area of scar tissue in the presacral region was also misinterpreted as malignant tissue with CT alone. Overall lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in assessing focal areas of residual tumor were as follows: 69.56%, 83.33%, 74.28% for CT, and 82.60%, 91.67%, 85.71% for PET+CT. The negative predictive value of PET+CT was markedly higher (73.33%), compared to that of CT alone (58.82%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PET used in combination with CT allows to accurately assess tumor response. A major advantage of PET+CT over CT alone is in excluding the presence of residual viable lesions after treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":79384,"journal":{"name":"The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR)","volume":"47 2","pages":"77-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To determine the additional value of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with computed tomography (CT) over CT used alone, for evaluating ovarian cancer patients after primary treatment.
Methods: Twenty-five women (mean age: 53.6 years) had primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy for histologically proven ovarian carcinoma. At initial diagnosis, the tumor types were papillary serous adenocarcinoma (n=20), endometroid carcinoma (n=3), mixed mullerian tumor (n=1), and granulosa cell tumor (n=1). All patients underwent [(18)F]FDG-PET and contrast enhanced CT examinations, within 30 days of the completion of chemotherapic treatment. [(18)F]FDG-PET images were interpreted with the knowledge of CT findings (PET+CT); conversely, CT images were evaluated with no knowledge of the [(18)F]FDG-PET results. Within 7 day of imaging studies, 2(nd)-look laparoscopy (n=7) or laparotomy (n=18) was performed for histological confirmation. In all cases, imaging findings were then correlated with results of histopathologic examination.
Results: Of the 23 neoplastic viable lesions, all histologically confirmed, 16 could be detected by CT alone and 19 by PET+CT. An inflammatory lymph-node was misdiagnosed as viable tumor with both PET+CT and CT alone; an area of scar tissue in the presacral region was also misinterpreted as malignant tissue with CT alone. Overall lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in assessing focal areas of residual tumor were as follows: 69.56%, 83.33%, 74.28% for CT, and 82.60%, 91.67%, 85.71% for PET+CT. The negative predictive value of PET+CT was markedly higher (73.33%), compared to that of CT alone (58.82%).
Conclusion: PET used in combination with CT allows to accurately assess tumor response. A major advantage of PET+CT over CT alone is in excluding the presence of residual viable lesions after treatment.