Cargando…
Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines?
OBJECTIVE: This study presents the diagnostic performance of four different preoperative imaging workups (IWs) for prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in endometrial cancer (EC): pelvic MRI alone (IW1), MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all patients (IW2), MRI with selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT if h...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755079/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35763096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08949-3 |
_version_ | 1784851348478492672 |
---|---|
author | Fasmer, Kristine E. Gulati, Ankush Dybvik, Julie A. Wagner-Larsen, Kari S. Lura, Njål Salvesen, Øyvind Forsse, David Trovik, Jone Pijnenborg, Johanna M. A. Krakstad, Camilla Haldorsen, Ingfrid S. |
author_facet | Fasmer, Kristine E. Gulati, Ankush Dybvik, Julie A. Wagner-Larsen, Kari S. Lura, Njål Salvesen, Øyvind Forsse, David Trovik, Jone Pijnenborg, Johanna M. A. Krakstad, Camilla Haldorsen, Ingfrid S. |
author_sort | Fasmer, Kristine E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This study presents the diagnostic performance of four different preoperative imaging workups (IWs) for prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in endometrial cancer (EC): pelvic MRI alone (IW1), MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all patients (IW2), MRI with selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT if high-risk preoperative histology (IW3), and MRI with selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT if MRI indicates FIGO stage ≥ 1B (IW4). METHODS: In 361 EC patients, preoperative staging parameters from both pelvic MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT were recorded. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) compared the diagnostic performance for the different imaging parameters and workups for predicting surgicopathological FIGO stage. Survival data were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimator with log-rank test. RESULTS: MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT staging parameters yielded similar AUCs for predicting corresponding FIGO staging parameters in low-risk versus high-risk histology groups (p ≥ 0.16). The sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs for LNM prediction were as follows: IW1—33% [9/27], 95% [185/193], and 0.64; IW2—56% [15/27], 90% [174/193], and 0.73 (p = 0.04 vs. IW1); IW3—44% [12/27], 94% [181/193], and 0.69 (p = 0.13 vs. IW1); and IW4—52% [14/27], 91% [176/193], and 0.72 (p = 0.06 vs. IW1). IW3 and IW4 selected 34% [121/361] and 54% [194/361] to [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT, respectively. Employing IW4 identified three distinct patient risk groups that exhibited increasing FIGO stage (p < 0.001) and stepwise reductions in survival (p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSION: Selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in patients with high-risk MRI findings yields better detection of LNM than MRI alone, and similar diagnostic performance to that of MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all. KEY POINTS: • Imaging by MRI and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT yields similar diagnostic performance in low- and high-risk histology groups for predicting central FIGO staging parameters. • Utilizing a stepwise imaging workup with MRI in all patients and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in selected patients based on MRI findings identifies preoperative risk groups exhibiting significantly different survival. • The proposed imaging workup selecting ~54% of the patients to [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT yield better detection of LNMs than MRI alone, and similar LNM detection to that of MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-08949-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9755079 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97550792022-12-17 Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? Fasmer, Kristine E. Gulati, Ankush Dybvik, Julie A. Wagner-Larsen, Kari S. Lura, Njål Salvesen, Øyvind Forsse, David Trovik, Jone Pijnenborg, Johanna M. A. Krakstad, Camilla Haldorsen, Ingfrid S. Eur Radiol Oncology OBJECTIVE: This study presents the diagnostic performance of four different preoperative imaging workups (IWs) for prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in endometrial cancer (EC): pelvic MRI alone (IW1), MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all patients (IW2), MRI with selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT if high-risk preoperative histology (IW3), and MRI with selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT if MRI indicates FIGO stage ≥ 1B (IW4). METHODS: In 361 EC patients, preoperative staging parameters from both pelvic MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT were recorded. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) compared the diagnostic performance for the different imaging parameters and workups for predicting surgicopathological FIGO stage. Survival data were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimator with log-rank test. RESULTS: MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT staging parameters yielded similar AUCs for predicting corresponding FIGO staging parameters in low-risk versus high-risk histology groups (p ≥ 0.16). The sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs for LNM prediction were as follows: IW1—33% [9/27], 95% [185/193], and 0.64; IW2—56% [15/27], 90% [174/193], and 0.73 (p = 0.04 vs. IW1); IW3—44% [12/27], 94% [181/193], and 0.69 (p = 0.13 vs. IW1); and IW4—52% [14/27], 91% [176/193], and 0.72 (p = 0.06 vs. IW1). IW3 and IW4 selected 34% [121/361] and 54% [194/361] to [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT, respectively. Employing IW4 identified three distinct patient risk groups that exhibited increasing FIGO stage (p < 0.001) and stepwise reductions in survival (p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSION: Selective [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in patients with high-risk MRI findings yields better detection of LNM than MRI alone, and similar diagnostic performance to that of MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all. KEY POINTS: • Imaging by MRI and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT yields similar diagnostic performance in low- and high-risk histology groups for predicting central FIGO staging parameters. • Utilizing a stepwise imaging workup with MRI in all patients and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in selected patients based on MRI findings identifies preoperative risk groups exhibiting significantly different survival. • The proposed imaging workup selecting ~54% of the patients to [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT yield better detection of LNMs than MRI alone, and similar LNM detection to that of MRI and [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT in all. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-08949-3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-06-28 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9755079/ /pubmed/35763096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08949-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Oncology Fasmer, Kristine E. Gulati, Ankush Dybvik, Julie A. Wagner-Larsen, Kari S. Lura, Njål Salvesen, Øyvind Forsse, David Trovik, Jone Pijnenborg, Johanna M. A. Krakstad, Camilla Haldorsen, Ingfrid S. Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
title | Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
title_full | Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
title_fullStr | Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
title_full_unstemmed | Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
title_short | Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[(18)F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
title_sort | preoperative pelvic mri and 2-[(18)f]fdg pet/ct for lymph node staging and prognostication in endometrial cancer—time to revisit current imaging guidelines? |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755079/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35763096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08949-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fasmerkristinee preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT gulatiankush preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT dybvikjuliea preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT wagnerlarsenkaris preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT luranjal preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT salvesenøyvind preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT forssedavid preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT trovikjone preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT pijnenborgjohannama preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT krakstadcamilla preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines AT haldorseningfrids preoperativepelvicmriand218ffdgpetctforlymphnodestagingandprognosticationinendometrialcancertimetorevisitcurrentimagingguidelines |