Tumour and pelvic lymph node metabolic activity on FDG-PET/CT to stratify patients for para-aortic surgical staging in locally advanced cervical cancer.
FDG-PET/CT
Locally advanced cervical cancer
Lymph node metabolic activity
Para-aortic lymphadenectomy
Journal
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
ISSN: 1619-7089
Titre abrégé: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101140988
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
04
09
2019
accepted:
10
12
2019
pubmed:
10
1
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
10
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of our study was to comprehensively evaluate the most valuable metabolic parameters of cervical tumours and pelvic lymph nodes (PLN) by FDG-PET/CT to predict para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis and stratify patients for surgical staging. The study included patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, negative PALN uptake on preoperative FDG-PET/CT, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Two senior nuclear medicine physicians expert in gynaecologic oncology reviewed all PET/CT exams, and extracted tumour SUVmax, MTV, and TLG, as well as PLN. Prognostic parameters of PALN involvement were identified using ROC curves and logistic regression analysis. One hundred and twenty-five consecutive locally advanced cervical cancer patients were included. The FDG-PET/CT false-negative rate was, respectively, 27.7% (13/47) and 5.1% (4/78) in patients with and without FDG-PET/CT PLN uptake. The AUC of cervical tumour size, SUVmax, MTV, and TLG was, respectively, 0.75 (0.62-0.87), 0.59 (0.44-0.76), 0.75 (0.60-0.90), and 0.71 (0.56-0.86). The AUC of PLN size, SUVmax, SUVmean, PLN SUVmax/Tumour SUVmax ratio, MTV, and TLG was, respectively, 0.57 (0.37-0.78), 0.82 (0.68-0.95), 0.77 (0.61-0.94), 0.85 (0.72-0.98), 0.69 (0.51-0.87), and 0.74 (0.57-0.91). The metabolic parameter showing the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity to predict PALN involvement was the ratio between PLN and tumour SUVmax. The risk of PALN metastasis in FDG-PET/CT negative PLN patients is very low, so para-aortic lymphadenectomy does not seem justified. In patients with preoperative PLN uptake on FDG-PET/CT, surgical staging led to treatment modification in more than 25% of cases and should therefore be performed. Patients with more than one positive PLN and high PLN metabolic activity are at high risk of para-aortic extension and recurrence. Further prospective evaluation is required to consider intensified treatment modalities without prior PALN dissection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31915897
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04659-z
pii: 10.1007/s00259-019-04659-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1252-1260Références
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):e212-20
pubmed: 22554549
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28;(3):CD008217
pubmed: 23543561
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 20;31(24):3026-33
pubmed: 23857967
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 18;14(7):e0220080
pubmed: 31318962
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 1;26(34):5654-5; author reply 5655-7
pubmed: 18981456
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jun;127(3):404-416
pubmed: 29728273
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Nov;91(2):326-31
pubmed: 14599862
Cancer. 2010 Mar 15;116(6):1469-75
pubmed: 20108309
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Apr;137(1):40-6
pubmed: 25641567
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Dec 1;42(5):1015-23
pubmed: 9869224
J Glob Oncol. 2016 May 25;2(5):311-340
pubmed: 28717717
J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 1;29(13):1678-85
pubmed: 21444871
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(9):e2992
pubmed: 26945420
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Apr;89(1):160-7
pubmed: 12694671
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Apr;41(4):674-81
pubmed: 24233005
Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;41(1):34-40
pubmed: 26505856
Oncotarget. 2017 Mar 8;8(31):51840-51847
pubmed: 28881693
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Sep;44(10):1721-1731
pubmed: 28409221
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S43-103
pubmed: 17161167
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Aug;18(8):2302-9
pubmed: 21347790
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(7):1551-1559
pubmed: 30729273
Cancer. 2008 May 1;112(9):1954-63
pubmed: 18338811
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv72-iv83
pubmed: 28881916
BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):1089-1094
pubmed: 28128517
Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2014 Sep-Oct;33(5):268-73
pubmed: 25018135
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Feb;120(2):270-4
pubmed: 21109300
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):169-75
pubmed: 26569062
Am J Clin Oncol. 2018 Dec;41(12):1225-1230
pubmed: 29782361
Clin Nucl Med. 2018 Nov;43(11):793-801
pubmed: 30153151
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Apr;97(1):183-91
pubmed: 15790456
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Jul;23(6):1104-10
pubmed: 23792605
Oncologist. 2011;16(7):1021-7
pubmed: 21659610
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;110(8):1738-44
pubmed: 17786947
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Oct;44(11):1862-1869
pubmed: 28534183