PET/CT with [18F]FDG in Endometrial Cancer

  • Evangelia V. Skoura
  • Ioannis E. DatserisEmail author


Like most neoplasms, endometrial carcinoma does demonstrate an increased rate of glycolysis and takes up [18F]FDG. Imaging with [18F]FDG-PET/CT may play a role as a prognostic factor in endometrium cancer. Several studies have shown that there is a statistically significant correlation between SUVmax and FIGO stage, histological grade, depth of myometrial invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular space involvement and tumour size. Also, they have demonstrated that high SUVmax was an independent prognostic factor for both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), p < 0.05 [1–3]. The analysis of survival ROC curve revealed SUVmax cutoff value of 17.7 to predict high risk of recurrence. Endometrial cancer patients with SUVmax higher than 17.7 were characterized by worse prognosis and lower overall survival [4].


  1. 1.
    Nakamura K, Joja I, Fukushima C, Haruma T, Hayashi C, Kusumoto T, Seki N, Hongo A, Hiramatsu Y (2013) The preoperative SUVmax is superior to ADCmin of the primary tumour as a predictor of disease recurrence and survival in patients with endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kitajima K, Kita M, Suzuki K, Senda M, Nakamoto Y, Sugimura K (2012) Prognostic significance of SUVmax (maximum standardized uptake value)measured by [18F]FDG PET/CT in endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:840–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nakamura K, Hongo A, Kodama J, Hiramatsu Y (2011) The measurement of SUVmax of the primary tumor is predictive of prognosis for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 123:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walentowicz-Sadlecka M, Malkowski B, Walentowicz P et al (2014) The preoperative maximum standardized uptake value measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT as an independent prognostic factor of overall survival in endometrial cancer patients. Biomed Res Int 2014:234813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Accuracy of FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1652–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 19:1529–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS et al (2006) Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 106:914–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitajima K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Murakami K, Sugimura K (2012) Comparison of DWI and PET/CT in evaluation of lymph node metastasis in uterine cancer. World J Radiol 4:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, Perego P, Moreni R, Pellegrino A, Colombo M, Mangioni C, Messa C, Fazio F (2006) Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 238:272–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, Suh DS, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH (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 108:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung HH, Park NH, Kim JW, Song YS, Chung JK, Kang SB (2009) Role of integrated PET-CT in pelvic lymph node staging of cervical cancer before radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Obstet Investig 67:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Signorelli M, Guerra L, Buda A, Picchio M, Mangili G, Dell’Anna T, Sironi S, Messa C (2009) Role of the integrated FDG PET/CT in the surgical management of patients with high risk clinical early stage endometrial cancer: detection of pelvic nodal metastases. Gynecol Oncol 115:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picchio M, Mangili G, Samanes Gajate AM et al (2010) High-grade endometrial cancer: value of 18F- FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging. Nucl Med Commun 31:506–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nayot D, Kwon JS, Carey MS et al (2008) Does preoperative positron emission tomography with computed tomography predict nodal status in endometrial cancer? A pilot study. Curr Oncol 15:123–125PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Costa J, Tabor A et al (2013) MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol 128:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Husby JA, Reitan BC, Biermann M et al (2015) Metabolic tumor volume on 18F-FDG PET/CT improves preoperative identification of high-risk endometrial carcinoma patients. J Nucl Med 56:1191–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Performance of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med 22:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sugimura K (2010) Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Bettinardi V et al (2007) Post-therapy surveillance of patients with uterine cancers: value of integrated FDG PET/CT in the detection of recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW et al (2008) The clinical impact of [18F]FDG PET/CT for the management of recurrent endometrial cancer: correlation with clinical and histological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:1081–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY et al (2008) Clinical impact of positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the posttherapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma: evaluation of 88 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18:1332–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kadkhodayan S, Shahriari S, Treglia G, Yousefi Z, Sadeghi R (2013) Accuracy of 18-F-FDG PET imaging in the follow up of endometrial cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 128:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentEvangelismos General HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations