Detection of Regional Lymph Node Metastasis by 18-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Endometrial Cancer

  • Deepali RainaEmail author
  • Rashmi Rekha Bora
  • Rama Joshi
Original Article



To evaluate the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting regional lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer.


A retrospective analysis was done for 50 patients having biopsy-proven endometrial cancer who underwent FDG PET/CT as a part of preoperative evaluation. All of these underwent Type I hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy either by open or robot-assisted surgery. PET/CT findings were then compared with the final histopathology. The criterion for malignancy on PET/CT images was increased FDG uptake by a lymph node independent of its size.


Hyper-metabolic FDG-avid lymph nodes were present in 9 out of 50 patients. Twelve patients had metastasis to lymph nodes on histopathology, and 38 were negative for nodal metastasis. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of PET/CT for detecting nodal metastases were 66.67, 97.4, 88.9, 90.24 and 90%, respectively.


Though FDG PET/CT has a high specificity and negative predictive value, its accuracy in diagnosing nodal metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer is limited because of its low sensitivity.


Endometrial cancer PET/CT Nodal metastasis Imaging 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Gottwald L, Pluta P, Piekarski J, et al. Long-term survival of endometrioid endometrial cancer patients. Arch Med Sci. 2010;6(6):937–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    BenedettiPanici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1707–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yost KJ, Cheville AL, Al-Hilli MM, et al. Lymphedema after surgery for endometrial cancer: prevalence, risk factors, and quality of life. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(2 Pt 1):307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, ASTEC study group, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomized study. Lancet. 2009;373:125–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams AD, Cousins C, Soutter WP, et al. Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in gynecologic malignancy: a comparison of CT, MR imaging, and positron emission tomography. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:343–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of FDG PET for detecting pelvic and para aortic node metastasis in uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:546–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al. Accuracy of FDG PET CT in detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(6):1652–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Kitajima K, et al. Comparison of DWI and PET-CT in evaluation of lymph node metastasis in uterine cancer. World J Radiol. 2012;4(5):207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang M, Chen JH, Liangd JA, et al. 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Euro J Radiol. 2012;81:3511–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim HJ, Cho A, Yun M, et al. Comparison of FDG PET/CT and MRI in lymph node staging of endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30(2):104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecologic OncologyFortis Memorial Research InstituteGurugramIndia

Personalised recommendations