The Significance of Positron Emission and Computerized Tomography with Fluorodeoxyglucose in the Post-Therapeutic Evaluation of Patients with Uterine Carcinoma
Sažetak
Introduction: The positron emission tomography with computerized tomography is a valuable machine in identifying tumors - it can determine the exact size and position of the cancer, as well as the effect of therapy. The duality of this technique provides information on the metabolic activities of the neoplasm and a precise anatomical location.
Aim: The aim of this study was be to determine the diagnostic performance of FDG PET/CT in detection of recurrent disease and to determine the stage of the disease after the application of therapy in patients with cervical carcinoma.
Material and methods: In this study, a total of 38 patients were included, in whom FDG PET/CT was made from 2010 to 2017. The diagnostic contribution of FDG PET/CT in the detection and identification of the recurrence of cervical cancer was determined by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT in the detection of local and distant relapses of cervical carcinoma were 90%, 75%, 93.1%, 66.7% and 86.8%, respectively. There were 27 true positive, 2 false positive, 6 true negative and 3 false negative findings.
Conclusion: The FDG PET/CT has proven to be a very sensitive method in the detection of secondary deposits of cervical cancer. Of particular importance is in the evaluation of the patient with this diagnosis. The metabolic activity of lesions (SUV max) did not have an impact on the therapeutic response.
Key words: FDG PET/CT, cervical cancer, evaluation.Reference
Mirpour S, Mhlanga JC, Logeswaran P, et al. The Role of PET/CT in the Management of Cervical Cancer. Am J Roentgen 2013; 201: W192-W205.
Vaccarella S, Lortet-Tieulent J, Plummer M, et al. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49:3262-3273.
Bruni L, Diaz M, Castellsague X, Ferrer E, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S. Cervical human papillomavirus prevalence in 5 continents: meta-analysis of 1 million women with normal cytological findings. J Infect Dis. 2010; 202:1789-1799.
Petignat P, Roy M. Diagnosis and management of cervical cancer. BMJ. 2007 Oct 13; 335(7623): 765–768.
Eifel PJ, Betek JS, Markman M. Cancer of cervix, vagina, and vulva. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA; eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology; 9th ed Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011. p. 1351-1370.
Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:9329-37.
Creasman WT. New gynecologic cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 58:157-8.
Kezr Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Nathanson D, Herrmann K. PET/CT in Oncology: Current Status and Perspectives. Curr Radiol Rep. 2013 May 3; 1:177-190.
Herrera FG, Prior JO. The role of PET/CT in cervical cancer. Front Oncol. 2013; 3: 34.
Nogami Y, Iida M, Banno K, et al. Application of FDG-PET in Cervical Cancer and Endometrial Cancer: Utility and Future Prospects. Anticancer Research February 2014; 34: 585-592
Son H, Kositwattanarerk A, Hayes MP, et al. PET/CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):1251-68.
Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology. 2001;218(3):776-82.
Jung W, Park KR, Lee KJ, et al. Value of imaging study in predicting pelvic lymph node metastases of uterine cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2017;35(4):340-348.
Khiewvan B1, Torigian DA, Emamzadehfard S, et al. Update of the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI in the management of patients with cervical cancer. Hell J Nucl Med. 2016;19(3):254-268.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S.
Ueno Y1, Lisbona R, Tamada T, et al. Comparison of FDG PET metabolic tumour volume versus ADC histogram: prognostic value of tumour treatment response and survival in patients with locally advanced uterine cervical cancer. Br J Radiol. 207;90(1075):20170035