Aim: The aim was to compare the imaging findings of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET and integrated PET/CT in patients with primary, recurrent or metastatic ovarian cancer. Materials and methods. 21 women with ovarian cancer were evaluated. All patients had a integrated PET/CT scan. Localization, infiltration and uptake intensity of [18F]FDG were evaluated on PET and PET/CT. The certainty of localisation and characterisation was scored on a 3 point scale (L1 definite localisation; L2 probable localisation; L3 uncertain localisation; C1 benign; C2 equivocal; C3 malignant). Results. PET scored as L1 54 lesions (44%), as L2 51 (42%), and as L3 17 (14%). On the other hand, PET/CT scored as L1 120 lesions (98%), as L2 2 (2%), and none as L3. Thus PET/CT allowed a better localization in 54% of lesions. Moreover, PET scored as C1 25 lesions (20%), as C2 62 (51%), and as C3 35 (29%) . On the other hand, PET/CT scored as C1 57 lesions (47%), as C2 13 (11%), and as C3 52 (42%). Thus PET/CT allowed a sensible reduction in the number of equivocal lesions (40%). Even when patients were subgrouped on the basis of clinical stage of the disease, PET/CT was capable of better definition of the lesions either for localization and for characterization. Conclusions. In patients with ovarian cancer, PET/CT allows better anatomical localisation of pathologic uptake providing high accuracy for staging and restaging of ovarian cancer when compared with PET alone.
18F-FDG PET AND PET/CT IN THE LOCALIZATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITH OVARIAN CANCER
A. M. Spera;PACE, Leonardo
2012-01-01
Abstract
Aim: The aim was to compare the imaging findings of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET and integrated PET/CT in patients with primary, recurrent or metastatic ovarian cancer. Materials and methods. 21 women with ovarian cancer were evaluated. All patients had a integrated PET/CT scan. Localization, infiltration and uptake intensity of [18F]FDG were evaluated on PET and PET/CT. The certainty of localisation and characterisation was scored on a 3 point scale (L1 definite localisation; L2 probable localisation; L3 uncertain localisation; C1 benign; C2 equivocal; C3 malignant). Results. PET scored as L1 54 lesions (44%), as L2 51 (42%), and as L3 17 (14%). On the other hand, PET/CT scored as L1 120 lesions (98%), as L2 2 (2%), and none as L3. Thus PET/CT allowed a better localization in 54% of lesions. Moreover, PET scored as C1 25 lesions (20%), as C2 62 (51%), and as C3 35 (29%) . On the other hand, PET/CT scored as C1 57 lesions (47%), as C2 13 (11%), and as C3 52 (42%). Thus PET/CT allowed a sensible reduction in the number of equivocal lesions (40%). Even when patients were subgrouped on the basis of clinical stage of the disease, PET/CT was capable of better definition of the lesions either for localization and for characterization. Conclusions. In patients with ovarian cancer, PET/CT allows better anatomical localisation of pathologic uptake providing high accuracy for staging and restaging of ovarian cancer when compared with PET alone.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
