Advertisement

What Is the Role of PET/CT in Gynecological Cancers?

  • Joanne Alfieri
  • Kailash Narayan
  • Andrea Rockall
Chapter

Abstract

Molecular imaging, in particular, integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography with the glucose analogue 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG-PET/CT), has added another dimension to oncology practice. Over the past decade, this modality has influenced diagnosis, staging, patient management, treatment planning, and posttreatment surveillance in a variety of tumor sites, including gynecological malignancies. However, its application is not without limitations and controversies. This chapter discusses these controversies with respect to cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. In particular, whether this modality has any usefulness in the staging of cervical cancer, in the surgical decision-making prior to hysterectomy in endometrial cancer, or in its application as a treatment response tool in ovarian cancer. The use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the management of gynecological malignancies is still evolving and further studies are required to optimize its role in these diseases.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Ovarian Cancer Cervical Cancer Endometrial Cancer Standardize Uptake Value 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24(2):523–43. Epub 2004/03/18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith TA. FDG uptake, tumour characteristics and response to therapy: a review. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19(2):97–105. Epub 1998/04/21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(8):1369–79. Epub 2000/08/17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haie-Meder C, Morice P, Castiglione M. Cervical cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2009;20 Suppl 4:27–8. Epub 2009/07/10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aebi S, Castiglione M. Newly and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2009;20 Suppl 4:21–3. Epub 2009/07/10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lucignani G. FDG-PET in gynaecological cancers: recent observations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(11):2133–9. Epub 2008/09/10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maffione AM, Piva M, Tsamita CS, Nanni C, Castellucci P, Ambrosini V, et al. Positron-emission tomography in gynaecologic malignancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(4):521–8. Epub 2009/02/19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Magne N, Chargari C, Vicenzi L, Gillion N, Messai T, Magne J, et al. New trends in the evaluation and treatment of cervix cancer: the role of FDG-PET. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008;34(8):671–81. Epub 2008/10/14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haie-Meder C, Mazeron R, Magne N. Clinical evidence on PET-CT for radiation therapy planning in cervix and endometrial cancers. Radiother Oncol. 2010;96(3):351–5. Epub 2010/08/17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Musto A, Rampin L, Nanni C, Marzola MC, Fanti S, Rubello D. Present and future of PET and PET/CT in gynaecologic malignancies. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78(1):12–20. Epub 2010/02/02.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(17):3745–9. Epub 2001/09/05.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4. Epub 2009/04/16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leblanc E, Narducci F, Frumovitz M, Lesoin A, Castelain B, Baranzelli MC, et al. Therapeutic value of pretherapeutic extraperitoneal laparoscopic staging of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):304–11. Epub 2007/01/30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lai CH, Huang KG, Hong JH, Lee CL, Chou HH, Chang TC, et al. Randomized trial of surgical staging (extraperitoneal or laparoscopic) versus clinical staging in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;89(1):160–7. Epub 2003/04/16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alfieri J, Jobling T, Narayan K, Bernshaw D, Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S. Does the staging of cervical cancer patients, treated with chemoradiation, by lymphadenectomy, CT, MRI, or PET have a survival impact? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(Suppl 3):E1174.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Narayan K, McKenzie A, Fisher R, Susil B, Jobling T, Bernshaw D. Estimation of tumor volume in cervical cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Clin Oncol. 2003;26(5):e163–8. Epub 2003/10/07.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma DJ, Zhu JM, Grigsby PW. Tumor volume discrepancies between FDG-PET and MRI for cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011;98(1):139–42. Epub 2010/10/26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Pelvic lymph node F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a prognostic biomarker in newly diagnosed patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(6):1469–75. Epub 2010/01/29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9077):535–40. Epub 1997/08/23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Narayan K, Hicks RJ, Jobling T, Bernshaw D, McKenzie AF. A comparison of MRI and PET scanning in surgically staged loco-regionally advanced cervical cancer: potential impact on treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11(4):263–71. Epub 2001/08/25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, Ihling C, Hogerle S, Mix M, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology. 2001;218(3):776–82. Epub 2001/03/07.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, Perego P, Moreni R, Pellegrino A, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology. 2006;238(1):272–9. Epub 2005/11/24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, Faulhaber PF, Abdul-Karim FW, Miraldi F. Positron emission tomography for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):41–5. Epub 1999/08/24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chou HH, Chang TC, Yen TC, Ng KK, Hsueh S, Ma SY, et al. Low value of [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in primary staging of early-stage cervical cancer before radical hysterectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(1):123–8. Epub 2005/12/31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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(8):1738–44. Epub 2007/09/06.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Narayan K, Fisher RJ, Bernshaw D, Shakher R, Hicks RJ. Patterns of failure and prognostic factor analyses in locally advanced cervical cancer patients staged by positron emission tomography and treated with curative intent. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(5):912–8. Epub 2009/07/04.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grigsby PW, Singh AK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Lymph node control in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(3):706–12. Epub 2004/06/09.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pandharipande PV, Choy G, del Carmen MG, Gazelle GS, Russell AH, Lee SI. MRI and PET/CT for triaging stage IB clinically operable cervical cancer to appropriate therapy: decision analysis to assess patient outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(3):802–14. Epub 2009/02/24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajasooriyar C, Van Dyk S, Bernshaw D, Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, Barkati M, Narayan K. Patterns of failure and treatment-related toxicity in advanced cervical cancer patients treated using extended field radiotherapy with curative intent. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(2):422–8. Epub 2010/05/25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Posttherapy [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in carcinoma of the cervix: response and outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(11):2167–71. Epub 2004/06/01.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA. 2007;298(19):2289–95. Epub 2007/11/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D. The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:64S–73. Epub 2009/04/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ferrandina G, Petrillo M, Restaino G, Rufini V, Macchia G, Carbone A, et al. Can radicality of surgery be safely modulated on the basis of MRI and PET/CT imaging in locally advanced cervical cancer patients administered preoperative treatment? Cancer. 2012;118(2):392–403. Epub 2011/07/02.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michel G, Morice P, Castaigne D, Leblanc M, Rey A, Duvillard P. Lymphatic spread in stage Ib and II cervical carcinoma: anatomy and surgical implications. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(3):360–3. Epub 1998/03/10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Delpech Y, Haie-Meder C, Rey A, Zafrani Y, Uzan C, Gouy S, et al. Para-aortic involvement and interest of para-aortic lymphadenectomy after chemoradiation therapy in patients with stage IB2 and II cervical carcinoma radiologically confined to the pelvic cavity. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(11):3223–31. Epub 2007/08/24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siva S, Herschtal A, Thomas JM, Bernshaw DM, Gill S, Hicks RJ, et al. Impact of post-therapy positron emission tomography on prognostic stratification and surveillance after chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(17):3981–8. Epub 2011/03/03.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Duyn A, Van Eijkeren M, Kenter G, Zwinderman K, Ansink A. Recurrent cervical cancer: detection and prognosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(8):759–63. Epub 2002/08/14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Belhocine T, Thille A, Fridman V, Albert A, Seidel L, Nickers P, et al. Contribution of whole-body 18FDG PET imaging in the management of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87(1):90–7. Epub 2002/12/07.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104(3):529–34. Epub 2006/10/20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yen TC, See LC, Chang TC, Huang KG, Ng KK, Tang SG, et al. Defining the priority of using 18F-FDG PET for recurrent cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(10):1632–9. Epub 2004/10/09.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, Kaji Y, et al. Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(6):1652–8. Epub 2008/05/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, Suh DS, Kim JH, Kim YM, et al. 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. 2008;108(3):486–92. Epub 2008/01/19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Signorelli M, Guerra L, Buda A, Picchio M, Mangili G, Dell’Anna T, et al. 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. 2009;115(2):231–5. Epub 2009/08/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fung-Kee-Fung M, Dodge J, Elit L, Lukka H, Chambers A, Oliver T. Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101(3):520–9. Epub 2006/03/25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Endometrial Carcinoma. Version1.2012. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf.
  46. 46.
    Rose PG. Endometrial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(9):640–9. Epub 1996/08/29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Menczer J. Endometrial carcinoma. Is routine intensive periodic follow-up of value? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2000;21(5):461–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hsu LH, Chen YP, Chang HP, Chen YR, Hong JH, Chao A, et al. Successful salvage treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer with multiple lung and abdominal metastases. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;32(2):218–20. Epub 2011/05/28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. The clinical impact of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for the management of recurrent endometrial cancer: correlation with clinical and histological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(6):1081–8. Epub 2008/01/09.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, Lybeert ML, Jobsen JJ, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC, et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet. 2000;355(9213):1404–11. Epub 2000/05/03.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Domeki Y, Kaji Y, Morita S, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent uterine cancer: comparison with PET and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(3):362–72. Epub 2008/10/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, Suh DS, Kim JH, Kim YM, et al. Role of PET or PET/CT in the post-therapy surveillance of uterine sarcoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(2):255–62. Epub 2008/03/01.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Murakami M, Tsukada H, Shida M, Watanabe M, Maeda H, Koido S, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose for the detection of recurrence in uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(2):854–60. Epub 2006/05/10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sung PL, Chen YJ, Liu RS, Shieh HJ, Wang PH, Yen MS, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose is an effective method to detect extra-pelvic recurrence in uterine sarcomas. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008;29(3):246–51. Epub 2008/07/03.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, et al. 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. 2008;18(6):1332–8. Epub 2008/02/27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Bettinardi V, et al. 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. 2007;34(4):472–9. Epub 2006/11/16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sakamoto S, Sugimura K. Established, emerging and future applications of FDG-PET/CT in the uterine cancer. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(4):297–307. Epub 2011/03/02.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(5):1297–304. Epub 2003/04/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer – a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(1):145–9. Epub 2007/01/19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28(8):589–95. Epub 2007/07/13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Senda M, Kita M, Nakamoto Y, Onishi Y, et al. FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis of primary ovarian cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32(7):549–53. Epub 2011/03/17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim S, et al. Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(3):389–94. Epub 2009/11/21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jung DC, Choi HJ, Ju W, Kim SC, Choi KG. Discordant MRI/FDG-PET imaging for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(4):637–41. Epub 2007/10/20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, Hricak H, Okuno WT, Powell B. Role of CT and MR imaging in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96(2):301–6. Epub 2005/01/22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Raman S, et al. Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(4):384–9. Epub 2007/02/01.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(10):1912–20. Epub 2008/08/07.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, Tsuchida T, Okazawa H, Fujibayashi Y, et al. Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(1):227–33. Epub 2003/12/20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, et al. Prediction of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in primary ovarian cancer with combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography – a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(2):265–70. Epub 2007/12/07.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Chi DS, Ramirez PT, Teitcher JB, Mironov S, Sarasohn DM, Iyer RB, et al. Prospective study of the correlation between postoperative computed tomography scan and primary surgeon assessment in patients with advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma reported to have undergone primary surgical cytoreduction to residual disease 1 cm or less. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(31):4946–51. Epub 2007/11/01.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, Naehrig J, Rutke S, Weber WA, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7445–53. Epub 2005/09/15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Picchio M, Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, Landoni C, Gianolli L, et al. Advanced ovarian carcinoma: usefulness of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with CT for lesion detection after primary treatment. Q J Nucl Med. 2003;47(2):77–84. Epub 2003/07/17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, Zangheri B, Aletti G, Garavaglia E, et al. Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology. 2004;233(2):433–40. Epub 2004/11/02.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bilici A, Ustaalioglu BB, Seker M, Canpolat N, Tekinsoy B, Salepci T, et al. Clinical value of FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: is there an impact of FDG PET/CT on patient management? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(7):1259–69. Epub 2010/03/24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, Cohade C, Zahurak ML, Fishman EK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(3):519–28. Epub 2003/09/19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hauth EA, Antoch G, Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Veit P, Bockisch A, et al. Evaluation of integrated whole-body PET/CT in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56(2):263–8. Epub 2005/10/20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fulham MJ, Carter J, Baldey A, Hicks RJ, Ramshaw JE, Gibson M. The impact of PET-CT in suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective multi-centre study as part of the Australian PET Data Collection Project. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):462–8. Epub 2009/01/20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rustin GJ, van der Burg ME, Griffin CL, Guthrie D, Lamont A, Jayson GC, et al. Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9747):1155–63. Epub 2010/10/05.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gadducci A, Cosio S. Surveillance of patients after initial treatment of ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;71(1):43–52. Epub 2009/01/31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Harter P, Sehouli J, Reuss A, Hasenburg A, Scambia G, Cibula D, et al. Prospective validation study of a predictive score for operability of recurrent ovarian cancer: the Multicenter Intergroup Study DESKTOP II. A project of the AGO Kommission OVAR, AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO-Austria, and MITO. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(2):289–95. Epub 2011/01/29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanne Alfieri
    • 1
  • Kailash Narayan
    • 2
  • Andrea Rockall
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyMcGill University Health Centre, Montreal General HospitalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreEast MelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations