scholarly journals Diagnostic value of [18F]FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Tsuyoshi ◽  
Tetsuya Tsujikawa ◽  
Shizuka Yamada ◽  
Hidehiko Okazawa ◽  
Yoshio Yoshida
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mri Contrast ◽  
Diagnostic Potential ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
N Stage ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose ([18F]FDG) in ovarian cancer. Materials and methods Participants comprised 103 patients with suspected ovarian cancer underwent pretreatment [18F]FDG PET/MRI, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and pelvic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (ceMRI). Diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI for assessing the characterization and the extent of the primary tumor (T stage) and [18F]FDG PET/MRI and ceCT for assessing nodal (N stage) and distant (M stage) metastases was evaluated by two experienced readers. Histopathological and follow-up imaging results were used as the gold standard. The McNemar test was employed for statistical analysis. Results Accuracy for the characterization of suspected ovarian cancer was significantly better for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (92.5%) [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–0.95] than for ceMRI (80.6%) (95% CI 0.72–0.83) (p < 0.05). Accuracy for T status was 96.4% (95% CI 0.96–0.96) and 92.9% (95% CI 0.93–0.93) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI/ceCT, respectively. Patient-based accuracies for N and M status were 100% (95% CI 0.88–1.00) and 100% (95% CI 0.88–1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI and 85.2% (95% CI 0.76–0.85) and 30.8% (95% CI 0.19–0.31) for ceCT and M staging representing significant differences (p < 0.01). Lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for N status were 78.6% (95% CI 0.57–0.91), 95.7% (95% CI 0.93–0.97) and 93.9% (95% CI 0.89–0.97) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI and 42.9% (95% CI 0.24–0.58), 96.6% (95% CI 0.94–0.98) and 90.8% (95% CI 0.87–0.94) for ceCT. Conclusions [18F]FDG PET/MRI offers better sensitivity and specificity for the characterization and M staging than ceMRI and ceCT, and diagnostic value for T and N staging equivalent to ceMRI and ceCT, suggesting that [18F]FDG PET/MRI might represent a useful diagnostic alternative to conventional imaging modalities in ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Diagnostic value of [18F]FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Tsuyoshi ◽  
Tetsuya Tsujikawa ◽  
Shizuka Yamada ◽  
Hidehiko Okazawa ◽  
Yoshio Yoshida
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mri Contrast ◽  
Diagnostic Potential ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
N Stage ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) in ovarian cancer.Materials and Methods: Participants comprised 103 patients with suspected ovarian cancer underwent pretreatment [18F]FDG PET/MRI, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and pelvic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (ceMRI). Diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI for assessing the characterization and the extent of the primary tumor (T stage) and [18F]FDG PET/MRI and ceCT for assessing nodal (N stage) and distant (M stage) metastases was evaluated by two experienced readers. Histopathological and follow-up imaging results were used as the gold standard. The McNemar test was employed for statistical analysis.Results: Accuracy for the characterization of suspected ovarian cancer was significantly better for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (92.5%) [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–0.95] than for ceMRI (80.6%) (95%CI 0.72–0.83) (p <0.05). Accuracy for T status was 96.4% (95%CI 0.96–0.96) and 92.9% (95%CI 0.93–0.93) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI/ceCT, respectively. Patient-based accuracies for N and M status were 100% (95%CI 0.88–1.00) and 100% (95%CI 0.88–1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI and 85.2% (95%CI 0.76–0.85) and 30.8% (95%CI 0.19–0.31) for ceCT and M staging representing significant differences (p<0.01). Lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for N status were 78.6% (95%CI 0.57–0.91), 95.7% (95%CI 0.93–0.97) and 93.9% (95%CI 0.89–0.97) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI and 42.9% (95%CI 0.24–0.58), 96.6% (95%CI 0.94–0.98) and 90.8% (95%CI 0.87–0.94) for ceCT. Conclusions: [18F]FDG PET/MRI offers better sensitivity and specificity for the characterization and M staging than ceMRI and ceCT, and diagnostic value for T and N staging equivalent to ceMRI and ceCT, suggesting that [18F]FDG PET/MRI might represent a useful diagnostic alternative to conventional imaging modalities in ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI For Staging in Patients With Ovarian Cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Tsuyoshi ◽  
Tetsuya Tsujikawa ◽  
Shizuka Yamada ◽  
Hidehiko Okazawa ◽  
Yoshio Yoshida
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mri Contrast ◽  
Diagnostic Potential ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
N Stage ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in ovarian cancer. Materials and Methods Participants comprised 103 patients with suspected ovarian cancer underwent pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/MRI, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and pelvic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (ceMRI). Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI for assessing the characterization and the extent of the primary tumor (T stage) and 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceCT for assessing nodal (N stage) and distant (M stage) metastases was evaluated by two experienced readers. Histopathological and follow-up imaging results were used as the gold standard. The McNemar test was employed for statistical analysis. Results Accuracy for the characterization of suspected ovarian cancer was significantly better for 18F-FDG PET/MRI (92.5%) than for ceMRI (80.6%; p < 0.05). Accuracy for T status was 96.4% and 92.9% for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI/ceCT, respectively. Patient-based accuracies for N and M status were 100% and 100% for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 85.2% and 30.8% for ceCT and M staging representing significant differences (p < 0.01). Lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for N status were 78.6%, 95.7% and 93.9% for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 42.9%, 96.6% and 90.8% for ceCT. Conclusions Use of 18F-FDG PET/MRI offers higher diagnostic value for the characterization and M staging than ceMRI and ceCT, and diagnostic value for T and N staging equivalent to ceMRI and ceCT, suggesting that 18F-FDG PET/MRI might represent a useful diagnostic alternative to conventional imaging modalities in ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Tsuyoshi ◽  
Tetsuya Tsujikawa ◽  
Shizuka Yamada ◽  
Hidehiko Okazawa ◽  
Yoshio Yoshida
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mri Contrast ◽  
Diagnostic Potential ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
N Stage ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in ovarian cancer.Materials and Methods: Participants comprised 103 patients with suspected ovarian cancer underwent pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/MRI, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and pelvic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (ceMRI). Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI for assessing the characterization and the extent of the primary tumor (T stage) and 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceCT for assessing nodal (N stage) and distant (M stage) metastases was evaluated by two experienced readers. Histopathological and follow-up imaging results were used as the gold standard. The McNemar test was employed for statistical analysis.Results: Accuracy for the characterization of suspected ovarian cancer was significantly better for 18F-FDG PET/MRI (92.5%) [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.841–0.950] than for ceMRI (80.6%) (95%CI 0.715–0.830) (p <0.05). Accuracy for T status was 96.4% (95%CI 0.964–0.964) and 92.9% (95%CI 0.929–0.929) for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI/ceCT, respectively. Patient-based accuracies for N and M status were 100% (95%CI 0.883–1.000) and 100% (95%CI 0.884–1.000) for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 85.2% (95%CI 0.758–0.852) and 30.8% (95%CI 0.188–0.308) for ceCT and M staging representing significant differences (p<0.01). Lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for N status were 78.6% (95%CI 0.571–0.913), 95.7% (95%CI 0.932–0.972) and 93.9% (95%CI 0.893–0.966) for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 42.9% (95%CI 0.240–0.581), 96.6% (95%CI 0.943–0.984) and 90.8% (95%CI 0.868–0.941) for ceCT. Conclusions: Use of 18F-FDG PET/MRI offers better sensitivity and specificity for the characterization and M staging than ceMRI and ceCT, and diagnostic value for T and N staging equivalent to ceMRI and ceCT, suggesting that 18F-FDG PET/MRI might represent a useful diagnostic alternative to conventional imaging modalities in ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with endometrial cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Tsuyoshi ◽  
Tetsuya Tsujikawa ◽  
Shizuka Yamada ◽  
Hidehiko Okazawa ◽  
Yoshio Yoshida
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Preoperative Staging ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Diagnostic Strategy ◽  
Diagnostic Potential ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Imaging Results

Abstract Background Preoperative accurate assessment of endometrial cancer can assist in the planning of additional surgical options, and in predicting the prognosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic potential of non-contrast PET/MRI with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for assessment in preoperative staging of endometrial cancer. Methods Thirty-six patients with biopsy-proven endometrial cancer underwent preoperative 18F-FDG PET/MRI, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and pelvic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (ceMRI) for initial staging. The diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI for assessing the extent of the primary tumor (T stage), and 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceCT for assessing nodal (N stage) and distant (M stage) metastasis, was evaluated by two experienced readers. Histopathological and follow-up imaging results were used as the gold standard. The McNemar test was employed for statistical analysis. Results Accuracy for T status was 77.8 and 75.0% for 18F-FDG PET/MRI and ceMRI, respectively. Patient-based accuracy for detecting regional nodal and distant metastasis was 91.3 and 81.8% for 18F-FDG PET/MRI, and 87.0 and 81.8% for ceCT. None of these parameters was statistically significant (p > 0.05). Lesion-based sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detecting regional nodal metastasis were 100, 96.9 and 97.0% for 18F-FDG PET/MRI, and 14.3, 97.6 and 93.3% for ceCT; sensitivity was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions Non-contrast 18F-FDG PET/MRI, which combines the individual advantages of PET and MRI, offers a high diagnostic value equivalent to that of ceMRI for assessment of the primary tumor, and equivalent to that of ceCT for the assessment of nodal and distant metastatic staging, in patients with endometrial cancer. These findings suggest that 18F-FDG PET/MRI might provide an alternative diagnostic strategy to conventional imaging modalities in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer.

scholarly journals Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052830
Author(s):  
Lizhang Xun ◽  
Lamei Zhai ◽  
Hui Xu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Doppler Us ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Ovarian Masses

ObjectivesTo assess the value of conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) (conventional ultrasonography (US), Doppler US and CEUS) for diagnosing ovarian cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies published until October 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessed the diagnostic value of conventional US, Doppler US or CEUS for detecting ovarian cancer, with no restrictions placed on published language and status.Data extraction and synthesisThe study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using the bivariate generalised linear mixed model and random effects model.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 72 studies and involved 9296 women who presented with ovarian masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for conventional US were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.91), 6.87 (95% CI: 4.98 to 9.49) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15), 57.52 (95% CI: 36.64 to 90.28) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for Doppler US were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.89), 6.10 (95% CI: 4.59 to 8.11) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.11), 61.76 (95% CI: 39.99 to 95.37) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for CEUS were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.95), 11.47 (95% CI: 6.52 to 20.17) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09), 152.11 (95% CI: 77.77 to 297.51) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), respectively. Moreover, the AUC values for conventional US (p=0.002) and Doppler US (p=0.005) were inferior to those of CEUS.ConclusionsConventional US, Doppler US and CEUS have a relatively high differential diagnostic value for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to that of conventional US and Doppler US.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document