Search

Cervical cancer is the second most common gynecological cancer worldwide. In locally advanced cervical cancer, 18 F-FDG PET/CT has become important in the initial staging, particularly in the detection of nodal and distant metastasis, aspects with treatment implications and prognostic value. The aims of this study were to review the role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in uterine cervical cancer, according to the guidelines of the main scientific institutions (FIGO, NCCN, SEGO, SEOM, ESGO, and ESMO) and its diagnostic accuracy compared to conventional radiological techniques, as well as to review the acquisition protocol and its utility in radiotherapy planning, response assessment and detection of recurrence., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of Deauville score (DS) vs. ΔSUVmax in interim-treatment PET (iPET) and end-treatment PET (ePET), in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and follicular lymphoma (FL)., Method: Retrospective longitudinal multicentre study including 138 patients (46 DLBCL, 46 HL, 46 FL), on whom 3 18 F-FDG PET/CT were performed: baseline, iPET, and ePET. Visual (DS) and semi-quantitative (ΔSUVmax) parameters were determined for iPET and ePET. Predictive value was determined in relation to disease-free interval., Results: Statistical analysis. iPET for DLBCL, HL, and FL: 1) sensitivity of DS: 76.92/83.33/61.53%; specificity: 78.78/85/81.81%; 2) sensitivity of ΔSUVmax: 53.84/83.33/61.53%; specificity: 87.87/87.50/78.78%. ePET for DLBCL, HL and FL: 1) sensitivity of DS: 61.53/83.33/69.23%; specificity: 90.90/85/87.87%; 2) sensitivity of ΔSUVmax: 69.23/83.33/69.23%; specificity: 90.90/87.50/84.84%. Predictive assessment. iPET study: in DLBCL, DS resulted in 10.3% recurrence of negative iPET, and 17.1% in ΔSUVmax at disease-free interval; in HL, both parameters showed a 2.8% recurrence of negative iPET; in FL, DS resulted in 15.6% recurrence of negative iPET, and 16.1% in ΔSUVmax, with no statistical significance. ePET study: in DLBCL, DS resulted in 14.3% recurrence of negative ePET, and 11.8% in ΔSUVmax at disease-free interval; in HL and FL, both methods showed 2.8 and 12.5% recurrence in negative ePET, respectively., Conclusion: DS and ΔSUVmax did not show significant differences in DLBCL, HL and FL. Their predictive value also did not show significant differences in HL and FL. In DLBCL, DS was higher in iPET, and ΔSUVmax in ePET., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y SEMNIM. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the performance of a mammography with molecular imaging PET (MAMMI-PET) system for breast imaging in the hanging-breast position for the visualization of primary breast cancer lesions and to compare this method with whole-body PET/CT., Subjects and Methods: Between March 2011 and March 2014, a prospective evaluation included women with one or more histologically confirmed primary breast cancer lesions (index lesions). After injection of 180-240 MBq of (18)F-FDG, whole-body PET/CT and MAMMI-PET acquisitions were performed, index lesions were scored 0, 1, or 2 for FDG uptake relative to background. Detection and FDG uptake were compared by breast length, maximal tumor diameter, affected breast quadrants, tumor grade, and histologic and immunologic sub-types. Finally, the two PET modalities were compared for detection of index lesions., Results: For 234 index lesions (diameter, 5-170 mm), the overall sensitivity was 88.9% for MAMMI-PET and 91% for PET/CT (p = 0.61). Twenty-three (9.8%) index lesions located too close to the pectoral muscle were missed with MAMMI-PET, and 20 index lesions were missed with PET/CT. Lesion visibility on MAMMI-PET images was influenced by tumor grade (p = 0.034) but not by cancer subtype (p = 0.65)., Conclusion: Although in an overall evaluation MAMMI-PET was not superior to PET/CT, MAMMI-PET does have higher sensitivity for primary breast cancer lesions within the scanning range of the device. Optimization of the positioning device may increase visualization of the most dorsal lesions.