Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 669–677 | Cite as

Prognostic value of volume-based metabolic parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT in ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Sangwon Han
  • Hyesung Kim
  • Yeon Joo Kim
  • Chong Hyun Suh
  • Sungmin WooEmail author
Original Article



To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET-derived volume-based parameters regarding metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) in patients with ovarian cancer.


Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 12, 2018 for studies which evaluated MTV or TLG as a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as the endpoints. Hazard ratios (HRs) were meta-analytically pooled using the random-effects model. Multiple subgroup analyses based on clinicopathological and PET variables were performed.


Eight studies with 473 patients were included. The pooled HRs of MTV and TLG for PFS were 2.50 (95% CI 1.79–3.48; p < 0.00001) and 2.42 (95% CI 1.61–3.65; p < 0.0001), respectively. Regarding OS, the pooled HRs of MTV and TLG were 8.06 (95% CI 4.32–15.05; p < 0.00001) and 7.23 (95% CI 3.38–15.50; p < 0.00001), respectively. Multiple subgroup analyses consistently showed that MTV and TLG were significant prognostic factors for PFS with pooled HRs ranging from 2.35 to 2.58 and from 1.73 to 3.35, respectively.


MTV and TLG from 18F-FDG PET were significant prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer. Despite the clinical heterogeneity and difference in methodology between the studies, patients with a high MTV or TLG have a higher risk of disease progression or death.


PET Ovarian cancer Metabolic tumor volume Total lesion glycolysis Prognosis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khiewvan B, Torigian DA, Emamzadehfard S, Paydary K, Salavati A, Houshmand S, et al. An update on the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI in ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1079–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz F. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1248–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115:1234–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eisenhauer EA, Vermorken JB, van Glabbeke M. Predictors of response to subsequent chemotherapy in platinum pretreated ovarian cancer: a multivariate analysis of 704 patients. Ann Oncol. 1997;8:963–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eltabbakh GH, Mount SL, Beatty B, Simmons-Arnold L, Cooper K, Morgan A. Factors associated with cytoreducibility among women with ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer. 2007;110:1738–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moon SH, Hyun SH, Choi JY. Prognostic significance of volume-based PET parameters in cancer patients. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Im HJ, Pak K, Cheon GJ, Kang KW, Kim SJ, Kim IJ, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters of (18)F-FDG PET in non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pak K, Cheon GJ, Nam HY, Kim SJ, Kang KW, Chung JK, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:884–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ciftci E, Turgut B, Cakmakcilar A, Erturk SA. Diagnostic importance of 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters and total lesion glycolysis in differentiating between benign and malignant adrenal lesions. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:788–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park T, Lee S, Park S, Lee E, Pahk K, Rhee S, et al. Value of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the Detection of Ovarian Malignancy. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;49:42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee M, Lee H, Cheon GJ, Kim HS, Chung HH, Kim J-W, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takeuchi S, Lucchini M, Schmeler KM, Coleman RL, Gershenson DM, Munsell MF, et al. Utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in follow-up of patients with low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:100–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chung HH, Kwon HW, Kang KW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1966–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallicchio R, Nardelli A, Venetucci A, Capacchione D, Pelagalli A, Sirignano C, et al. F-18 FDG PET/CT metabolic tumor volume predicts overall survival in patients with disseminated epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim CY, Jeong SY, Chong GO, Son SH, Jung JH, Kim DH, et al. Quantitative metabolic parameters measured on F-18 FDG PET/CT predict survival after relapse in patients with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136:498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee JW, Cho A, Lee JH, Yun M, Lee JD, Kim YT, et al. The role of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis on (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1898–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liao S, Lan X, Cao G, Yuan H, Zhang Y. Prognostic predictive value of total lesion glycolysis from 18F-FDG PET/CT in post-surgical patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:715–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayoral M, Fernandez-Martinez A, Vidal L, Fuster D, Aya F, Pavia J, et al. Prognostic value of 18 F-FDG PET/CT volumetric parameters in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular (English Edition). 2016;35:88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vargas HA, Burger IA, Goldman DA, Micco M, Sosa RE, Weber W, et al. Volume-based quantitative FDG PET/CT metrics and their association with optimal debulking and progression-free survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3348–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yamamoto M, Tsujikawa T, Fujita Y, Chino Y, Kurokawa T, Kiyono Y, et al. Metabolic tumor burden predicts prognosis of ovarian cancer patients who receive platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Sci. 2016;107:478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vallius T, Hynninen J, Kemppainen J, Alves V, Auranen K, Matomaki J, et al. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT based total metabolic tumor volume change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1224–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Meta-analysis for Imaging studies on Diagnostic test Accuracy and prognosiS (MIDAS) groupSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineAsan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyKangwon National University HospitalChuncheonSouth Korea
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyAsan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  6. 6.Department of RadiologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations