SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     



J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):110P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Han, Y. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kang, B. C.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Han, Y. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kang, B. C.

Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Solid Tumors

Gynecological Cancers

Role of FDG-PET in the diagnosis of recurrence and assessment of therapeutic response in gynecologic cancer patients: Comparison between PET, abdominal CT and tumor marker

You Mie Han1, Jae-Gol Choe1 and Bung Chul Kang2

1 Nuclear Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea; 2 Radiology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Seoul, South Korea

439

Objectives: Aimed to assess the role of FDG-PET in the diagnosis of recurrence or the assessment of therapeutic response in gynecologic cancer patients by making a comparison between abdominal CT and serum tumor marker.

Methods: We included 119 cases (76 patients) performed FDG-PET and abdominal CT. There were 41 cervical cancers, 15 endometrical cancers, 62 ovary cancers and one uterine leiomyosarcoma. We retrospectively reviewed the PET and CT images and their interpretations, as well as the level of tumor marker. We calculated their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for these three modalities. And then we analyzed the differences between these three modalities.

Results: Tumor recurrences were diagnosed in 38 cases (11 cervical cancers, 26 ovarian cancers and 1 endometrial cancer). For PET, CT and tumor marker, in cervical cancer group, sensitivity was 100%(11/11), 54.5%(6/11) and 80.8%(21/26), respectively. And specificity was 93.5%(29/31), 93.6%(29/31) and 100%(31/31). In ovary cancer group, sensitivity was 96.2%(25/26), 84.6%(22/26) and 80.8%(21/26), and specificity was 94.3%(33/35), 94.3%(33/35), 94.3%(33/35). PET was highly sensitive to detect the intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal metastasis with the help of the CT images to localize the lesions. But, CT had limitations in differentiation of the recurrent tumor from benign fibrotic tissue, identification of viable tumors at the interface of tissues, and detecting extraperitoneal lesions.

Conclusions: FDG-PET can be an essential modality to detect the recurrent or residual tumors in gynecologic cancer patients because of its great field of the application and high sensitivity.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Han, Y. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kang, B. C.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Han, Y. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kang, B. C.