Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT

Kitajima, Kazuhiro; Murakami, Koji; Yamasaki, Erena; Domeki, Yasushi; Tsubaki, Masahiro; Sunagawa, Masakatsu; Kaji, Yuichi; Suganuma, Narufumi; Sugimura, Kazuro

doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3

Cited by 103 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These data are further confirmed by Kitajima and colleagues in a series of studies in patients with uterine, ovarian, colorectal and pancreas cancer [8][9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Contrast-enhanced Studies With Pet/ct Hybrid Camerassupporting

confidence: 65%

Hybrid versus fusion imaging: are we moving forward judiciously?

Giovanella

Lucignani

2010

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These data are further confirmed by Kitajima and colleagues in a series of studies in patients with uterine, ovarian, colorectal and pancreas cancer [8][9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Contrast-enhanced Studies With Pet/ct Hybrid Camerassupporting

confidence: 65%

Hybrid versus fusion imaging: are we moving forward judiciously?

Giovanella

Lucignani

2010

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the prior studies, researchers found that accuracy, sensitivity, and specifi city were 63%-100%, 73%-100%, and 40%-100%, respectively, at the patient level and 72%-96%, 41%-78%, and 75%-99%, respectively, at the region level ( 14,16,17,20,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30). In these prior studies, the diagnostic The number, size (on CE CT and PET/CT images) and SUV max (on PET/CT images) of peritoneal deposits (for all three readers) and of distant (M1) lymph node metastases (readers 1 and 2 only) were signifi cantly associated with poor survival ( Table 5 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lymph node was considered suspicious for malignancy on a CE CT image if it measured 7 mm or longer in the short-axis diameter. This approach to image analysis was based on the experience of the authors, review of the published literature, and the institution's surgical template ( 4,(7)(8)(9)14,21 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have shown that, among patients who are suspected of having ovarian cancer recurrence, PET/CT has the greatest utility in those patients with rising CA 125 levels and negative conventional imaging results (13)(14)(15)(16)(17). Furthermore, three recent prospective studies have shown that PET/CT can help modify patient treatment by demonstrating the distribution of recurrent ovarian cancer (18)(19)(20).…”

Section: Patient Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Use of Contrast-enhanced CT and PET/CT to Accurately Localize Tumor Recurrence and to Predict Patients’ Survival

Sala¹,

Kataoka²,

Pandit‐Taskar³

et al. 2010

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To compare accuracy and interobserver variability in the detection and localization of recurrent ovarian cancer with contrast material-enhanced (CE) computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and determine whether imaging fi ndings can be used to predict survival. Materials and Methods:Waiving informed consent, the institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study of 35 women (median age, 54.4 years) with histopathologically proven recurrent ovarian carcinoma who underwent CE CT and PET/CT before exploratory surgery. All CE CT and PET /CT scans were independently analyzed. Tumor presence, number of lesions, and the size and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max ) of the largest lesion were recorded for patient and region. Surgical histopathologic fi ndings constituted the reference standard. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), k statistics, and hazard ratios were calculated. Results:Readers' AUCs in detection of recurrence for region were 0.85 (95% confi dence interval [CI]: 0.81, 0.90) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.83) for CE CT and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.89) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.81) for PET/CT ( P = .76); 12 patients died. At PET/CT, size, number, and SUV max of peritoneal deposits were signifi cantly associated with poor survival for readers 1 and 2 ( P Յ .01 and Յ .05, respectively), as were long-and short-axis diameters, number, and SUV max of distant lymph nodes for reader 1 ( P Յ .001).With CE CT, size (reader 1) and number (readers 1 and 3) of peritoneal deposits were signifi cantly associated with poor survival ( P Յ .01), as were long-and short-axis diameters and number of distant lymph nodes for reader 1 ( P Յ .01). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (patient, k = 0.30) to moderate (region, k = 0.55) for CE CT and fair (patient, k = 0.24) to substantial (region, k = 0.63) for PET/CT. Conclusion:Preliminary data suggest that CE CT and PET/CT may have similar accuracy in detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Tumor size, number, and SUV max may have potential as prognostic biomarkers for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.q RSNA, 2010

show abstract

“…For ovarian cancer, both sensitivity and specificity in detecting PM is in the range of 78 %-97 %. [28][29][30][31][32][33] A recent metaanalysis of imaging modalities for recurrent ovarian cancer showed that PET-CT had the highest pooled sensitivity of 92 %,compared with PET,CT or MRI alone [34].…”

Section: Positron Emission Tomography (Pet) Scan and Pet-ctmentioning

confidence: 99%