Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of FDG-PET/CT in gynecologic imaging: an updated guide to interpretation and challenges

  • Pictorial essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

All women, during their lifetime, are at risk of developing some form of gynecologic malignancy. The role of FDG-PET/CT has become more established in the management of gynecologic malignancies in the last decade. In this article, we will review the role of FDG-PET/CT in endometrial, cervical, ovarian, and vaginal cancer, by highlighting its strengths and limitations. While the role in initial or pre-operative staging for FDG-PET/CT is controversial, it allows noninvasive detection of equivocal or distant metastases, may alter stage and prognosis, and can guide or help eliminate unnecessary interventions that may not be beneficial. FDG-PET/CT is a useful adjunct to traditional staging with MR and CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avril N, Gourtsoyianni S, Reznek R (2011) Gynecological cancers. Methods Mol Biol 727:171–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Plaxton N, Polsani A, Halkar R, Godette K, Barron B (2012) FDG PET/CT utility in gynecologic malignancies: a comprehensive interactive review of anatomy, pathways of metastatic spread and scan findings. J Nucl Med 53:1067

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nogami Y, Iida M, Banno K, et al. (2014) Application of FDG-PET in cervical cancer and endometrial cancer: utility and future prospects. Anticancer Res 34:585–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rockall AG, Cross S, Flanagan S, Moore E, Avril N (2012) The role of FDG-PET/CT in gynaecological cancers. Cancer Imaging 12:49–65

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharma P, Kumar R, Singh H, et al. (2012) Carcinoma endometrium: role of 18-FDG PET/CT for detection of suspected recurrence. Clin Nucl Med 37:649–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lioupis M, Syrmos N (2016) Nuclear Medicine and its promising applications in gynecological cancers. Hell J Nucl Med 19:63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Micco M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Hricak H, Vargas HA (2014) Role of imaging in the pretreatment evaluation of common gynecological cancers. Womens Health (Lond) 10:299–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. NCCN Practice Guidelines Narrative Summary of Indications for FDG PET and PET/ CT. 2/14/2016 ed2016.

  10. Prat J (2015) Oncology FCoG. FIGO’s staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: abridged republication. J Gynecol Oncol 26:87–89

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2010) Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:737–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, et al. (2008) Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol 108:486–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Picchio M, Mangili G, Samanes Gajate AM, et al. (2010) High-grade endometrial cancer: value of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging. Nucl Med Commun 31:506–512

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kang SY, Cheon GJ, Lee M, et al. (2017) Prediction of recurrence by preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in endometrioid endometrial cancer. Transl Oncol 10:178–183

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, et al. (2008) Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1707–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman SJ, Aly AM, Kataoka MY, et al. (2012) The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. Radiographics 32:1805–1827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2009) Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer. Eur Radiol 19:1529–1536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakahara T, Fujii H, Ide M, et al. (2001) F-18 FDG uptake in endometrial cancer. Clin Nucl Med 26:82–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chander S, Meltzer CC, McCook BM (2002) Physiologic uterine uptake of FDG during menstruation demonstrated with serial combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Nucl Med 27:22–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, et al. (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:266–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peltomaki P, Butzow R (2011) Pathogenesis of endometriosis and its relationship to gynecological cancers. Epigenomics 3:689–690

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Saga T, Higashi T, Ishimori T, et al. (2003) Clinical value of FDG-PET in the follow up of post-operative patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med 17:197–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Survival rates for Ovarian Cancer by Stage. 2016.

  24. Tjalma WA, Carp L, De Beeck BO (2004) False-positive positron emission tomographic scan and computed tomography for recurrent vaginal cancer: pitfalls of modern imaging techniques. Gynecol Oncol 92:726–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, et al. (2002) Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology 223:780–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, et al. (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun 28:589–595

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Grab D, Flock F, Stohr I, et al. (2000) Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol 77:454–459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. (2004) Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:227–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myers ER (2005) FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 97:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS (2004) From the archives of the AFIP. Radiographics 24:225–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Keidar Z, Amit A, Lowenstein L, Israel O (2015) The role of FDG-PET/CT in predicting secondary optimal debuling in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. J Nucl Med 56:1346

    Google Scholar 

  32. Miller DS, Spirtos NM, Ballon SC, et al. (1992) Critical reassessment of second-look exploratory laparotomy for epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Minimal diagnostic and therapeutic value in patients with persistent cancer. Cancer 69:502–510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kubik-Huch RA, Dorffler W, von Schulthess GK, et al. (2000) Value of (18F)-FDG positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 10:761–767

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D (2009) The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 50:64S–73S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, et al. (2005) Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7445–7453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rose PG, Faulhaber P, Miraldi F, Abdul-Karim FW (2001) Positive emission tomography for evaluating a complete clinical response in patients with ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma: correlation with second-look laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 82:17–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Markowitz LE, Unger ER, Saraiya M (2009) Primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer–opportunities and challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:439–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka ML, Konishi J (1998) Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 8:391–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Dehdashti F, Siegel BA (2010) Gynecological tumors. In: Delbeke D, Israel O (eds) Hybrid PET/CT and SPECT/CT imaging: a teaching file. New York: Springer, pp 383–408

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Pandit-Taskar N (2005) Oncologic imaging in gynecologic malignancies. J Nucl Med 46:1842–1850

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F (2001) Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 19:3745–3749

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al. (2010) Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in cervical cancer: relationship to prognosis. J Clin Oncol 28:2108–2113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lukka H, Hirte H, Fyles A, et al. (2002) Concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for cervical cancer–a meta-analysis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 14:203–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. About Gynecologic Cancers—Foundation for Women’s Cancer. 2017. at http://www.foundationforwomenscancer.org/about-gynecologic-cancers/.)

  45. Bodurka-Bevers D, Morris M, Eifel PJ, et al. (2000) Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcomes analysis. Gynecol Oncol 78:187–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Jacobs AJ, Faris C, Perez CA, et al. (1986) Short-term persistence of carcinoma of the uterine cervix after radiation. An indicator of long-term prognosis. Cancer 57:944–950

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA 298:2289–2295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Lamoreaux WT, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, et al. (2005) FDG-PET evaluation of vaginal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:733–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. (2017) Vulvar cancer, version 1.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 15:92–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cohn DE, Dehdashti F, Gibb RK, et al. (2002) Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography for the detection of groin node metastases from vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol 85:179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Vaginal Cancer Treatment (PDQ(R)): Health Professional Version. PDQ Cancer Information Summaries. Bethesda (MD)2002.

  52. Robertson NL, Hricak H, Sonoda Y, et al. (2016) The impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of patients with vulvar and vaginal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 140:420–424

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA

    Esma A. Akin, Elsa Stephen Kuhl & Robert K. Zeman

  2. Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd Street NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA

    Esma A. Akin

Authors
  1. Esma A. Akin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elsa Stephen Kuhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert K. Zeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esma A. Akin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Esma A. Akin, M.D. declares that she has no conflict of interest. Elsa Stephen Kuhl, M.D. declares that she has no conflict of interest. Robert K. Zeman, M.D. declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akin, E.A., Kuhl, E.S. & Zeman, R.K. The role of FDG-PET/CT in gynecologic imaging: an updated guide to interpretation and challenges. Abdom Radiol 43, 2474–2486 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1441-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1441-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation