Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

FDG-PET/CT Imaging of Ovarian Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ovarian Neoplasm Imaging

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the second most common gynecologic malignancy (after cervical cancer), with a lifetime risk of 1.7 %. Although its incidence has decreased slightly over the past 30 years, it is currently the most common cause of death among women with gynecologic malignancies.

Imaging, especially ultrasound and CT, has become a critical part of the evaluation of patients with ovarian cancer. As for many other malignancies, the role of FDG-PET and PET/CT is being extensively studied for the evaluation of ovarian malignancy, and the goals of oncologic imaging with PET/CT are to help differentiate benign from malignant disease, to determine the extent of malignant disease, to detect residual and recurrent disease, and to monitor and guide therapy. In this chapter the PET/CT application in oncologic imaging will be reviewed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. ACR practice guideline for performing FDG-PET/CT in oncology. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/nuc_med.aspx. Accessed 16 May 2012.

  3. Avril N. GLUT1 expression in tissue and F-18 FDG uptake. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:930–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231:305–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, et al. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:4S–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Burn T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;43:189–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, et al. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, et al. Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT; phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:412–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C, et al. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology. 2003;226:577–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG-PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohade C, Osman M, Pannu HK, Wahl RL. Uptake in supraclavicular area fat (“USA-Fat”): description on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:170–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chander S, Meltzer CC. McCook Bm. Physiologic uterine uptake of FDG during menstruation demonstrated with serial combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Nucl Med. 2002;27:22–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nakamoto Y, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, et al. Normal FDG distribution patterns in the head and neck: PET/CT evaluation. Radiology. 2005;234:879–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Avril N, Gourtsoyanni S, Reznek R. Gynecological cancers. Meth Mol Biol. 2011;727:171–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu Y. Benign ovarian and endometrial uptake on FDG PET-CT: patterns and pitfalls. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:107–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, et al. Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology. 2002;223:780–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:589–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1912–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Karantanis D, Allen-Auerbach M, Czernin J. Relationship between glycolytic phenotype, grade and histologic subtype in ovarian carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:49–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Musto A, Rampin L, Nanni C, et al. Present and future of PET and PET/CT in gynecologic malignancies. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, et al. Diagnostic and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Grab D, Flock F, Stohr I, et al. Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:454–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rieber A, Nussle K, Stohr I, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:123–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. van Trappen PO, Rufford BD, Mills TD, et al. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography with color Doppler in ovarian tumor: a systemic quantitative review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:230–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, et al. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:732–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, et al. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization-meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2005;236:85–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kawahara K, Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, et al. Evaluation of positron emission tomography with tracer 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in addition to magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in selected women after ultrasonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;24:505–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer – a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Romer W, Avril N, Dose J, et al. Metabolic characterization of ovarian tumors with positron-emission tomography and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Rofo. 1997;166:62–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim SK, Kang KW, Roh JW, et al. Incidental ovarian 18F-FDG accumulation on PET: correlation with the menstrual cycle. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:757–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nishizawa S, Inubushi M, Okada H. Physiologic 18F-FDG uptake in the ovaries and uterus of healthy female volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:549–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Subhas N, Patel PV, Pannu HK, et al. Imaging of pelvic malignancies with in-line FDG PET-CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. Radiographics. 2005;25:1031–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stahl A, Weber WA, Avril N, et al. Effect of N-butylscopolamine on intestinal uptake of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in PET imaging of the abdomen. Nuklearmedizin. 2000;39:241–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pignata S, Vermoken JB. Ovarian cancer in the elderly. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004;49:77–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones III H, et al. FIGO staging classification and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2000;70:209–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, et al. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, et al. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities – report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 2000;215:761–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:227–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, et al. Does the use of diagnostic PET/CT cause stage migration in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2011;116:395–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yuan Y, Gu ZX, Tao XF, Liu SY. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(5):1002–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim HJ, Kim JK, Cho KS. CT features of serous surface papillary carcinoma of the ovary. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(6):1721–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Salani R, Diaz-Montes T, Giuntoli RL, Bristow RE. Surgical management of mesenteric lymph node metastasis in patients undergoing rectosigmoid colectomy for locally advanced ovarian carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(12):3552–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Harter P, Gnauert K, Hils R, et al. Pattern and clinical predictors of lymph node metastases in epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(6):1238–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Benedetti-Panici P, Greggi S, Maneschi F, et al. Anatomical and pathological study of retroperitoneal nodes in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51(3):150–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patient with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer. 2006;106(4):914–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hynninen J, Auranen A, Carpen O, et al. FDG PET/CT in staging of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: frequency of supradiaphragmatic lymph node metastasis challenges the traditional pattern of disease spread. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):64–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Buy JN, Moss AA, Ghossain MA, et al. Peritoneal implants from ovarian tumors: CT findings. Radiology. 1988;169(3):691–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. De Iaco P, Musto A, Orazi L, et al. FDG-PET/CT in advanced ovarian cancer staging: value and pitfalls in detecting lesions in different abdominal and pelvic quadrants compared with laparoscopy. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):e98–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Meyers MA. Distribution of intra-abdominal malignant seeding: dependency on dynamics of flow of ascitic fluid. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1973;119(1):198–206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, et al. Integrated FDG PET/CT in patient with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology. 2004;233:433–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Powell FC, Cooper AJ, Massa MC, Goellner JR, Su WP. Sister Mary Joseph’s nodule: a clinical and histologic study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10(4):610–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer; patient detection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(3):519–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. De Rosa V, Mangoni di Stefano ML, Brunetti A, et al. Computed tomography and second-look surgery in ovarian cancer patients. Correlation, actual role and limitations of CT scan. Eur J Gynecol Oncol. 1995;16:123–9.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Javitt MC. ACR Appropriateness Criteria on staging and follow-up of ovarian cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:586–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1449–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, et al. PET-CT vs. CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Thrall MM, DeLoia JA, Gallion H, et al. Clinical use of combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:17–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Iagaru AH, Mittra ES, McDougall IR, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluation of patients with ovarian carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:1046–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mangili G, Picchio M, Sironi S, et al. Integrated PET/CT as a first-line re-staging modality in patients with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:658–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Simcock B, Neesham D, Quinn M, et al. The impact of PET/CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(1):271–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1439–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bhosale P, Peungjesada S, Wei W, et al. Clinical utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer in the setting of normal CA-125 levels. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;20:936–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Cho SM, Ha HK, Byun JY. Usefulness of FDG PET for assessment of early recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:391–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Gu P, Pan LL, Wu SQ, et al. CA125, PEt alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:164–74.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Kanenishi K, et al. Monitoring the neoadjuvant therapy response in gynecological cancer patients using FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Du XL, Jiang T, Sheng XG, et al. PET/CT scanning guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy in treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3551–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pichler BJ, Kolb A, Nagele T, et al. PET/MRI: paving the way for the next generation of clinical multimodality imaging applications. J Nucl Med. 2011;51:333–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Kolb A, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging? Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:199–208.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nakajo K, Tatsumi M, Inoue A, et al. Diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion images of gynecological malignant tumors: comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(2):95–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PET Imaging Science Center, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Lin Ho MD

Authors
  1. Lin Ho MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Ho MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Luca Saba

  2. Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore, Singapore

    U. Rajendra Acharya

  3. University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Stefano Guerriero

  4. Biomedical Technologies, Inc, Roseville, California, USA

    Jasjit S. Suri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ho, L. (2013). FDG-PET/CT Imaging of Ovarian Cancer. In: Saba, L., Acharya, U., Guerriero, S., Suri, J. (eds) Ovarian Neoplasm Imaging. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8633-6_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8633-6_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8632-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8633-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation