Clinical PET pp 325-346 | Cite as

Gynecologic Cancers

  • Sung-Eun Kim
  • June-Key Chung
  • E. Edmund Kim


Gynecologic cancers constitute approximately 20% of visceral cancers in women and are divided into three major types: ovarian, cervical, and endometrial. The majority of the gynecologic cancers require surgical removal, along with adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The therapeutic option varies with the type and stage of cancer. Therefore, accurate staging is necessary for optimal treatment.


Positron Emission Tomography Ovarian Cancer Cervical Cancer Standard Uptake Value Ovarian Carcinoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Soper JT. Radiographic imaging in gynecologic oncology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44: 485–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vardi J, Tadros G, Foemmel R, Shebes M. Plasma lipid-associated sialic acid and serum CAl25 as indicators of disease status with ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gupta NC, Frank AR, Casey MJ. FDG-PET imaging for post-treatment evaluation of patients with genitourinary malignancies. J Nucl Med 1992; 33: 829.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1999. CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49: 8–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chou CY, Chang CH, Yao BL, et al. Color Doppler ultrasonography and serum CAl25 in the differentiation of benign and malignant ovarian tumors. J Clin Ultrasound 1994; 22: 491–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krag DN. Clinical utility of immunoscintigraphy in managing ovarian cancer. J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 545–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grab D, Flock F, Stohr I, Nussele K. Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gyncol Oncol 2000; 77: 454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hubner KF, McDonald TW, Niethammer JG, et al. Assessment of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by positron emission tomography using deoxyglucose. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 51: 197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zimny M, Schroder W, Wolters S, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET in ovarian carcinoma: methodology and preliminary results. Nuklearmedizin 1997; 36: 228–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schroder W, Zimny M, Rudlowski C, et al. The role of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer Oncol 1999; 9: 117–122.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Römer W, Avril N, Dose J, et al. Metabolische Charakterisierung von Ovarialtumoren mit der Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie and F-18 Fluorodeoxyglukose. Fortschr Rontgenstr 1997; 166: 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Omura GA, Bradhy MF, Homesley HD, et al. Long-term follow-up and prognostic factor analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma: the Gynecologic Oncologic Group experience. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1138–1150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ozols RF. Chemotherapy of ovarian cancer. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Updates. Vol. 2, No. 1. Philidelphia: JB Lippincott, 1988: 1–12.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bragg DG, Hricak H. Imaging in gynecologic malignancies. Cancer 1993; 71: 1648–1651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manuel M, Holschneider CH, Williams CM, et al. Correlation of FDG-PET scans with surgicopathologic findings in ovarian cancers. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 29.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ak I, Stokkel MPM, Pauwels EKJ. Positron emission tomography with 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in oncology. Part II. The clinical value in detecting and staging primary tumors. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2000; 126: 560–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR 2001; 176: 1449 1454.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barter J, Barnes W. Second-look laparotomy. In: Rubin S, Sutton G, eds. Ovarian Cancer. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 269–300.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rose PG, Faulhaber P, Miraldi F, et al. Positron emission tomography for evaluating a complete clinical response in patients with ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma: correlation with second-look laparotomy. Gynecol On-col 2001; 82: 17–21.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Casey MJ, Gupta NC, Muths CK. Experience with positron emission tomography (PET) scans in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 53: 331–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zimny M, Siggelkow W, Schroder W, et al. 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxyD-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 83: 310–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chung J-K, Kang SB, Kim MH, et al. The role of 18F-FDG-PET in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma as a substitute for second-look operation. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 282.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delbeke D, Martin WH. Positron emission tomography imaging in oncology. Radiol Clin North Am 2001; 39: 883–917.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torizuka T, Nobezawa S, Kanno T, et al. Ovarian cancer recurrence: role of whole-body positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro2-deoxy-D-glucose. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29: 797–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yen R-F, Sun S-S, Shen Y-Y, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 2001; 21: 3691–3694.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW, et al. PET/CT in restaging patients with ovarian carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 310.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Makhija S, Howden N, Edwards R, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for the recurrent ovarian and fallopian tube carcinoma: a retrospective review. Gynecol Oncol 2002; 85: 53–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith GT, Hubner KF, McDonald T, et al. Cost analysis of FDG-PET for managing patients with ovarian cancer. Clin Pos Imag 1999; 2: 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miraldi F, Vesselle H, Faulhaber PF, et al. Elimination of artifactual accumulation of FDG in PET imaging of colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1998; 23: 3–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holschneider CH, Manuel M, Williams CM, et al. FDG-PET in ovarian cancer: use of the standardized uptake value (SUV) to differentiate physiological bowel activity from intraperitoneal metastatic tumor. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 29.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cook GJR, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Normal variants, artefacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and carbon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26: 1363–1378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lapela M, Leskinen-Kallio S, Varpula M, et al. Metabolic imaging of ovarian tumors with carbon-11-methionine: a PET study. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 2196–2220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeong HJ, Chung J-K, Paeng JC, et al. Usefulness of 11C methionine PET in the pelvic region for evaluation of recurrent gynecologic cancer in postoperative state. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 283.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eifel PJ, Berek JS, Thigpen JT. Cancer of the cervix, vagina, and vulva. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: Principles and Prac- tice of Oncology, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997: 1433–1478.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morice P, Sabourin JC, Pautier P, et al. Isolated para-aortic node involvement in stage IB/II cervical carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2000; 21: 123–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hricak H, Yu KK. Radiology in invasive cervical cancer. AJR 1996; 167: 1101 1108.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, et al. Evaluation of FDG-PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 1125–1131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, et al. PET for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 41–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin On-col 2001; 19: 3745–3749.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG-PET. Radiology 2001; 218: 776–782.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Park DH, Kim KH, Park SY, et al. Diagnosis of recurrent uterine cervical cancer: computed tomography versus positron emission tomography. Korean J Radiol 2000; 1: 51–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sun SS, Chen TC, Yen RF, et al. Value of whole-body 18F-fluoro-2deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of recurrent cervical cancer. Anticancer Res 2001; 21: 2957–2962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nakamoto Y, Eisbruch A, Achtyes ED, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 2002; 84: 289–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pinkus E, Miller TR, Grigsby PW. Improved prognostic value of FDG-PET in patients with cervical cancer using a simple visual analysis of tumor characteristics. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 28.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jang HJ, Lee KH, Kim YH, et al. The role of FDG-PET for predicting prognosis in squamous cell type uterine cervical carcinoma patients. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 28.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yasuda S, Ide M, Takagi S, Shohtsu A. Intrauterine accumulation of F-18 FDG during menstruation. Clin Nucl Med 1997; 22: 793–794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakahara T, Fujii H, Ide M, et al. F-18 FDG uptake in endometrial cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2001; 26: 82–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Belhocine TZ, Bolle KS, Willems-Foidart J. Usefulness of 18F-FDG-PET in the post-therapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 118–119.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Umesaki N, Tanada T, Miyama M, et al. Positron emission tomography 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose of uterine sarcoma: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and power Doppler imaging. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 80: 372–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cohn DE, Dehdashti F, Gibb RK, et al. Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography for the detection of groin node metastases from vulva cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002; 85: 179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sung-Eun Kim
  • June-Key Chung
  • E. Edmund Kim

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations