18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Vulvar Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Journal
Clinical nuclear medicine
ISSN: 1536-0229
Titre abrégé: Clin Nucl Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7611109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Feb 2021
01 Feb 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
11
2020
medline:
14
1
2021
entrez:
25
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of this study were to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients and to extract summary estimates of its diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging. PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify studies evaluating 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients. The assessment of methodological quality of the included articles was performed. Per-patient and per-groin pooled estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. Ten articles were included in the systematic review, 7 among which evaluated the diagnostic performance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging. Qualitative per-patient analysis (72 patients from 4 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.76-1.04), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97), and 10.49 (95% CI, 1.68-65.50), respectively. Qualitative per-groin analysis (245 groins from 5 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 19.43 (95% CI, 6.40-58.95), respectively. Despite limited literature data, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that a negative preoperative PET/CT scan may exclude groin metastases in at least early-stage vulvar cancer patients currently unfit for sentinel node biopsy and select those eligible for a less invasive surgical treatment. A positive PET/CT result should otherwise be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to evaluate the diagnostic value of standardized semiquantitative analysis compared with the qualitative one.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33234921
pii: 00003072-202102000-00005
doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003411
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125-132Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin . 2020;70:7–30.
Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2017, National Cancer Institute . Bethesda, MD. Based on November 2019 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2020. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2017/ . Accessed July 2020.
Hacker NF, Eifel PJ, van der Velden J. Cancer of the vulva. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2012;119:S90–S96.
Del Pino M, Rodriguez-Carunchio L, Ordi J. Pathways of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia and squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology . 2013;62:161–175.
Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bradley K, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN guidelines), Vulvar cancer (squamous cell carcinoma): version 3. 2020. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/vulvar.pdf . Updated July 24, 2020.
Iversen T, Aas M. Lymph drainage from the vulva. Gynecol Oncol . 1983;16:179–189.
Burger MP, Hollema H, Emanuels AG, et al. The importance of the groin node status for the survival of T1 and T2 vulval carcinoma patients. Gynecol Oncol . 1995;57:327–334.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev . 2015;4:1.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med . 2011;155:529–536.
Stata Statistical Software: release 14 [computer program] . College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.
Brar H, May T, Tau N, et al. Detection of extra-regional tumour recurrence with 18 F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with recurrent gynaecological malignancies being considered for radical salvage surgery. Clin Radiol . 2017;72:302–306.
Oldan JD, Sullivan SA. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography for inguinal nodes in vulvar cancer. World J Nucl Med . 2018;17:139–144.
Collarino A, Garganese G, Fragomeni SM, et al. Radiomics in vulvar cancer: first clinical experience using 18 F-FDG PET/CT images. J Nucl Med . 2018. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.215889.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.215889
Crivellaro C, Guglielmo P, De Ponti E, et al. 18 F-FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging of vulvar cancer patients: is it really effective? Medicine (Baltimore) . 2017;96:e7943.
Garganese G, Collarino A, Fragomeni SM, et al. Groin sentinel node biopsy and 18 F-FDG PET/CT-supported preoperative lymph node assessment in cN0 patients with vulvar cancer currently unfit for minimally invasive inguinal surgery: the GroSNaPET study. Eur J Surg Oncol . 2017;43:1776–1783.
Collarino A, Garganese G, Valdés Olmos RA, et al. Evaluation of dual-timepoint 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging for lymph node staging in vulvar cancer. J Nucl Med . 2017;58:1913–1918.
Rao YJ, Hassanzadeh C, Chundury A, et al. Association of post-treatment positron emission tomography with locoregional control and survival after radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva. Radiother Oncol . 2017;122:445–451.
Robertson NL, Hricak H, Sonoda Y, et al. The impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of patients with vulvar and vaginal cancer. Gynecol Oncol . 2016;140:420–424.
Dolanbay M, Ozcelik B, Abdulrezzak U, et al. F-18 fluoro-D-glucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in planning of surgery and sentinel lymph node screening in vulvar cancers. Arch Gynecol Obstet . 2016;293:1319–1324.
Lin G, Chen CY, Liu FY, et al. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and FDG positron emission tomography in the management of vulvar malignancies. Eur Radiol . 2015;25:1267–1278.
Kamran MW, O’Toole F, Meghen K, et al. Whole-body [18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan as combined PET-CT staging prior to planned radical vulvectomy and inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy for squamous vulvar cancer: a correlation with groin node metastasis. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol . 2014;35:230–235.
Cohn DE, Dehdashti F, Gibb RK, et al. Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography for the detection of groin node metastases from vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol . 2002;85:179–184.
Perry LJ, Guralp O, Al-Niaimi A, et al. False positive PET-CT scan and clinical examination in a patient with locally advanced vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol Case Rep . 2013;4:29–31.
Cheng G, Torigian DA, Zhuang H, et al. When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging . 2013;40:779–787.
Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med . 2004;45:1519–1527.
Rudra S, Fuser D, DeWees TA, et al. Radiologic assessment of groin lymph nodes in pelvic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer . 2020;30:947–953.
Viswanathan C, Kirschner K, Truong M, et al. Multimodality imaging of vulvar cancer: staging, therapeutic response, and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2013;200:1387–1400.
Prieske K, Haeringer N, Grimm D, et al. Patterns of distant metastases in vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol . 2016;142:427–434.
Zwanenburg A, Vallières M, Abdalah MA, et al. The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology . 2020;295:328–338.
Hatt M, Tixier F, Pierce L, et al. Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present… any future? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging . 2017;44:151–165.