False negative rate at
Adenocarcinoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Adult
Aged
Aorta
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
/ diagnostic imaging
Chemoradiotherapy
False Negative Reactions
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Humans
Laparoscopy
Lymph Node Excision
/ methods
Lymph Nodes
/ diagnostic imaging
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Pelvis
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Radiopharmaceuticals
Retrospective Studies
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Young Adult
Cervical cancer
FDG
LACC
PET/CT
Para-aortic lymph node
TOF
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Feb 2021
06 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
21
09
2020
accepted:
19
01
2021
entrez:
7
2
2021
pubmed:
8
2
2021
medline:
3
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The identification of factors responsible for false negative (FN) rate at A total of 240 consecutive patients with LACC (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO, stage IB2-IVA) and negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and/or Computed Tomography (CT) and negative Patients presented with FIGO stage IB (n = 78), stage IIA-B (n = 134), stage III (n = 18) and stage IVa (n = 10), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 191) and adenocarcinoma (n = 49). 141/240 patients were evaluated with no-TOF PET/CT and 99/240 with TOF PET/CT. Twenty-two patients (9%) had PA nodal involvement at histological analysis and considered PET/CT FN findings. The FN rate was 8.5% for no-TOF PET and 10% for TOF PET subgroup respectively (p = 0.98). Ninety patients (38%) presented with pelvic node uptakes at PET/CT. The FN rate in the PA region was 18% (16/90) and 4% (6/150) in patients with and without pelvic node involvement at PET/CT respectively (19 vs 3% for no-TOF PET and 17 vs 5% for TOF PET subgroup). In LACC, FN rate in PA lymph nodes detection is a clinical issue even for modern PET/CT, especially in patients with pelvic uptake. Surgical lymphadenectomy should be performed in case of negative PET/CT at PA level in these patients, while it could be discussed in the absence of pelvic uptake.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The identification of factors responsible for false negative (FN) rate at
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 240 consecutive patients with LACC (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO, stage IB2-IVA) and negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and/or Computed Tomography (CT) and negative
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patients presented with FIGO stage IB (n = 78), stage IIA-B (n = 134), stage III (n = 18) and stage IVa (n = 10), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 191) and adenocarcinoma (n = 49). 141/240 patients were evaluated with no-TOF PET/CT and 99/240 with TOF PET/CT. Twenty-two patients (9%) had PA nodal involvement at histological analysis and considered PET/CT FN findings. The FN rate was 8.5% for no-TOF PET and 10% for TOF PET subgroup respectively (p = 0.98). Ninety patients (38%) presented with pelvic node uptakes at PET/CT. The FN rate in the PA region was 18% (16/90) and 4% (6/150) in patients with and without pelvic node involvement at PET/CT respectively (19 vs 3% for no-TOF PET and 17 vs 5% for TOF PET subgroup).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In LACC, FN rate in PA lymph nodes detection is a clinical issue even for modern PET/CT, especially in patients with pelvic uptake. Surgical lymphadenectomy should be performed in case of negative PET/CT at PA level in these patients, while it could be discussed in the absence of pelvic uptake.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33549033
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-07821-9
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-07821-9
pmc: PMC7866875
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
135Références
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan;45(1):26-34
pubmed: 25368102
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):e212-20
pubmed: 22554549
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Jan;40(1):127-33
pubmed: 25015401
Eur Radiol. 2005 Dec;15(12):2469-74
pubmed: 15999213
Clin Imaging. 2014 Jul-Aug;38(4):464-469
pubmed: 24642250
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Aug;18(8):2302-9
pubmed: 21347790
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2558-61
pubmed: 18487573
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 20;31(24):3026-33
pubmed: 23857967
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 18;14(7):e0220080
pubmed: 31318962
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Nov;24(9):1642-7
pubmed: 25268748
Cancer Radiother. 2011 Dec;15(8):699-708
pubmed: 22104953
Eur Radiol. 2011 May;21(5):1102-10
pubmed: 21063710
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;145(1):129-135
pubmed: 30656645
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Jan;37(1):181-200
pubmed: 19915839
J Nucl Med. 2011 Mar;52(3):347-53
pubmed: 21321265
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Jan-Feb;21(1):3-8
pubmed: 23911560
Radiol Oncol. 2015 Aug 21;49(3):227-33
pubmed: 26401127
J Transl Med. 2018 Nov 26;16(1):326
pubmed: 30477530
J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):462-70
pubmed: 18287269
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Nov;37(11):978-83
pubmed: 21907530
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 20;28(12):2108-13
pubmed: 20308664
Cancer. 2011 May 1;117(9):1928-34
pubmed: 21509770
Cancer. 1999 Apr 1;85(7):1547-54
pubmed: 10193945
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Feb;156(2):320-327
pubmed: 31843274
Cancer. 2008 May 1;112(9):1954-63
pubmed: 18338811
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Jan;17(1):64-84
pubmed: 30659131
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Sep;41(14):2086-92
pubmed: 16125928
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 May;46(5):883-887
pubmed: 31784203
BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):1089-1094
pubmed: 28128517
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Sep;142(3):413-9
pubmed: 27178725
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):312-317
pubmed: 27908530
Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2007 Oct 1;580(2):919-924
pubmed: 18836513
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Nov;29(9):1351-1354
pubmed: 31473660
Strahlenther Onkol. 2015 May;191(5):421-8
pubmed: 25413986
J Nucl Med. 2011 May;52(5):712-9
pubmed: 21498523
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Jul-Aug;18(4):723-9
pubmed: 17868275
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):4-16
pubmed: 28687866
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82(3):209-222
pubmed: 28183074