AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cho, S.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cho, S.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2002; 179:391-395
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Usefulness of FDG PET for Assessment of Early Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Song-Mee Cho1, Hyun Kwon Ha2, Jae Young Byun1, Jae Mun Lee1, Chan Joo Kim3, Sung Eun Nam-Koong3 and Joon Mo Lee3

1 Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, South Korea.
2 Department of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 388-1 Poongnap-Dong Songpa-Ku, Seoul, South Korea.
3 Department of Gynecology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-Dong, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, South Korea.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FDG positron emission tomography (PET) in comparison with CT in detecting recurrent ovarian carcinoma and its ability to reveal small tumor recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We reviewed the records of 31 consecutive patients with pathologically proven epithelial carcinoma who underwent FDG PET 1 month before second-look surgery to assess recurrent tumor. Of these 31 patients, 21 patients also underwent CT 1 month before second-look surgery. The diagnostic accuracies of FDG PET (n = 31), CT (n = 21), and combined FDG PET and CT (n = 21) in detecting recurrent tumor were calculated and compared with each other using the Bennett's test in 21 patients who underwent both imaging studies. Detection rates of individual tumors relative to their sizes were compared between FDG PET and CT using the McNemar test.

RESULTS. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FDG PET, CT, and combined FDG PET and CT for revealing recurrent ovarian cancer were 45.3%, 99.7%, 91.0%; 54.5%, 99.6%, 91.7%; 58.2%, 99.6%, 92.4%, respectively. We found no statistically significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET, CT, and combined FDG PET and CT ({chi}2 < 5.991). Detection rates of tumor nodules found on CT were significantly greater than those on FDG PET when nodule size was 0.3-0.7 cm (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION. FDG PET did not improve the overall diagnostic accuracy in detecting recurrent ovarian carcinoma compared with CT. Rather, FDG PET was inferior to CT in its ability to reveal small-tumor recurrence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNMHome page
J. K. Schwarz, P. W. Grigsby, F. Dehdashti, and D. Delbeke
The Role of 18F-FDG PET in Assessing Therapy Response in Cancer of the Cervix and Ovaries
J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 64S - 73S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. J. A. Margolis, J. M. Hoffman, R. J. Herfkens, R. B. Jeffrey, A. Quon, and S. S. Gambhir
Molecular Imaging Techniques in Body Imaging
Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 333 - 356.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
Y. Nakamoto, S. Sakamoto, T. Okada, M. Senda, T. Higashi, T. Saga, and K. Togashi
Clinical Value of Manual Fusion of PET and CT Images in Patients with Suspected Recurrent Colorectal Cancer
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 257 - 267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ImagingHome page
M V Pakkal and M Balogun
Imaging of ovarian cancer
Imaging, August 1, 2006; 18(1): 20 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
N. Subhas, P. V. Patel, H. K. Pannu, H. A. Jacene, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl
Imaging of Pelvic Malignancies with In-Line FDG PET-CT: Case Examples and Common Pitfalls of FDG PET
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2005; 25(4): 1031 - 1043.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Sironi, C. Messa, G. Mangili, B. Zangheri, G. Aletti, E. Garavaglia, R. Vigano, M. Picchio, G. Taccagni, A. D. Maschio, et al.
Integrated FDG PET/CT in Patients with Persistent Ovarian Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Findings
Radiology, November 1, 2004; 233(2): 433 - 440.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
H. K. Pannu, R. E. Bristow, C. Cohade, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl
PET-CT in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Initial Observations
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 209 - 223.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
P. J. Woodward, K. Hosseinzadeh, and J. S. Saenger
From the Archives of the AFIP: Radiologic Staging of Ovarian Carcinoma with Pathologic Correlation
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 225 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
H. K. Pannu, R. E. Bristow, F. J. Montz, and E. K. Fishman
Multidetector CT of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Ovarian Cancer
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2003; 23(3): 687 - 701.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.