Radiology · 2001
Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reinhardt M J, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, Ihling C, Högerle S, Mix M, Moser E, Krause T M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[fluorine 18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Before radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in 35 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB or II cervical cancer, abdominal FDG-PET and MR imaging were performed. Malignancy criteria were a lymph node diameter of 1 cm or more at MR imaging and a focally increased FDG uptake at PET. The findings of FDG-PET and MR imaging were compared with histologic findings.
RESULTS: Histologic examination revealed pN0-stage cancer in 24 patients and pN1-stage cancer in 11 patients. On a patient basis, node staging resulted in sensitivities of 0.91 with FDG-PET and 0.73 with MR imaging and specificities of 1.00 with FDG-PET and 0.83 with MR imaging. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FDG-PET was 1.00 and that of MR imaging, 0.67 (not significant). The metastatic involvement of lymph node sites was identified at FDG-PET with a PPV of 0.90; at MR imaging, 0.64 (P <.05, Fisher exact test).
CONCLUSION: Metabolic imaging with FDG-PET is an alternative to morphologic MR imaging for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Before radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in 35 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB or II cervical cancer, abdominal FDG-PET and MR imaging were performed. Malignancy criteria were a lymph node diameter of 1 cm or more at MR imaging and a focally increased FDG uptake at PET. The findings of FDG-PET and MR imaging were compared with histologic findings.
RESULTS: Histologic examination revealed pN0-stage cancer in 24 patients and pN1-stage cancer in 11 patients. On a patient basis, node staging resulted in sensitivities of 0.91 with FDG-PET and 0.73 with MR imaging and specificities of 1.00 with FDG-PET and 0.83 with MR imaging. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FDG-PET was 1.00 and that of MR imaging, 0.67 (not significant). The metastatic involvement of lymph node sites was identified at FDG-PET with a PPV of 0.90; at MR imaging, 0.64 (P <.05, Fisher exact test).
CONCLUSION: Metabolic imaging with FDG-PET is an alternative to morphologic MR imaging for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer.