The role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the evaluation of lymph node status in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: our experience and a review.
diffusion magnetic resonance imaging
magnetic resonance imaging
positron emission tomography/computed tomography
uterine cervical neoplasms
Journal
Polish journal of radiology
ISSN: 1733-134X
Titre abrégé: Pol J Radiol
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101175532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
05
10
2021
accepted:
21
12
2021
entrez:
12
9
2022
pubmed:
13
9
2022
medline:
13
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value measurement in the diagnosis of meta-static lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) and to present a systematic review of the literature. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams of patients with LACC were retrospectively eva-luated. Mean ADC, relative ADC (rADC), and correct ADC (cADC) values of enlarged LNs were measured and compared between positron emission tomography (PET)-positive and PET-negative LNs. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney A total of 105 LNs in 34 patients were analysed. The median ADC value of PET-positive LNs (0.907 × 10 Mean ADC, rADC, and cADC were significantly lower in the PET-positive group than in the PET-negative group. The ADC cut-off value of 1.149 × 10-3 mm
Identifiants
pubmed: 36091653
doi: 10.5114/pjr.2022.118914
pii: 47671
pmc: PMC9453471
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e438-e447Informations de copyright
© Pol J Radiol 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
Eur Radiol. 2009 Aug;19(8):2024-32
pubmed: 19277675
Cancer Sci. 2010 Jun;101(6):1471-9
pubmed: 20298252
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:22-36
pubmed: 30306584
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 May;47(5):1228-1238
pubmed: 31414206
Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):2045-2057
pubmed: 30324389
Radiology. 2006 Jan;238(1):272-9
pubmed: 16304090
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jul;92(1):22-33
pubmed: 19095323
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jun;60(2):77-92
pubmed: 26859085
Abdom Imaging. 2011 Feb;36(1):102-9
pubmed: 19953246
Radiographics. 2015 May-Jun;35(3):916-45
pubmed: 25969940
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Mar;91(3):360-3
pubmed: 9491860
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Eur Radiol. 2017 Dec;27(12):5272-5279
pubmed: 28534163
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jun 08;8:139
pubmed: 23758698
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Nov;42(12):1814-24
pubmed: 26199113
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jun;28(6):2425-2435
pubmed: 29318432
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jul;40(1):157-61
pubmed: 24677497
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Jul-Aug;21(4):540-5
pubmed: 24407177
Anticancer Res. 2011 Nov;31(11):3865-71
pubmed: 22110211
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jun;190(6):1652-8
pubmed: 18492920
Eur J Radiol. 2004 Oct;52(1):78-83
pubmed: 15380850
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Jul;122(1):19-24
pubmed: 21497384
Cancer. 1999 Apr 1;85(7):1547-54
pubmed: 10193945
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Sep;28(3):714-9
pubmed: 18777531
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;52(1):110-118
pubmed: 29119649
Acta Radiol. 2011 Dec 1;52(10):1175-83
pubmed: 21969698
Acta Radiol. 2019 Mar;60(3):388-395
pubmed: 29911401
Clin Radiol. 2002 Mar;57(3):193-200; discussion 201-4
pubmed: 11952313
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Mar;35(3):650-9
pubmed: 22069238
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Feb;29(2):383-90
pubmed: 19161191
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;51(5):684-695
pubmed: 28620930
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82(3):209-222
pubmed: 28183074