4.7 Article

Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 1529-1536

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1271-8

Keywords

Uterine cancer; Lymph node metastasis; FDG; PET/CT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy of integrated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography ((CT) with intravenous contrast medium in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer, with surgical and histopathological findings used as the reference standard. Forty-five patients with endometrial or uterine cervical cancer underwent radical hysterectomy, including pelvic lymphadenectomy with or without paraaortic lymphadenectomy, after PET/CT. PET/CT findings were interpreted by two experienced radiologists in consensus. The criterion for malignancy on PET/CT images was increased tracer uptake by the lymph node, independent of node size. The overall node-based sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of PET/CT for detecting nodal metastases were 51.1% (23/45), 99.8% (1,927/1,931), 85.2% (23/27), 98.9% (1,927/1,949) and 98.7% (1,950/1,976), respectively. The sensitivity for detecting metastatic lesions 4 mm or less in short-axis diameter was 12.5% (2/16), that for between 5 and 9 mm was 66.7% (16/24), and that for 10 mm or larger was 100.0% (5/5). The overall patient-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value ((PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 50% (6/12), 90.9% (30/33), 66.7% (6/9), 83.3% (30/36) and 80.0% (36/45), respectively. Integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT is superior to conventional imaging, but only moderately sensitive in predicting lymph node metastasis preoperatively in patients with uterine cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available