Abstract
In the staging of gynecological cancers, evaluation of local extent of the tumor, neighboring lymph nodes and distant metastasis are necessary. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) has more frequently been used in the evaluation of gynecological malignancies due to its advantages over positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and MRI. Providing metabolic information from PET and high soft tissue resolution from MRI in the single-step and low radiation exposure can be some of these advantages. In addition to its advantages in the staging, it has higher sensitivity and specificity than PET/CT and MRI alone in the detection of recurrent disease and evaluation of treatment response. In this review we aimed to share the literature in PET/MRI applications in gynecological malignancies with our case examples.
Keywords: Gynecological malignancies, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of ıncidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249.
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int J Cancer. 2021 Apr 5.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17-48.
Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA. 2003;290:3199-3206.
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369-1379.
Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1200-1209.
Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1914-1922.
Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:56-65.
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145:129-135.
Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Suntharalingam S, et al. Whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: Ultra-fast 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172553.
Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:622-629.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI in the detection of intra-pelvic recurrence of gynecological tumor: comparison with 18F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:25-32.
Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, et al. Implementation of FAST-PET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: A comparison to PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:2097-2102.
Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, et al. Simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a comparison to whole-body magnetic resonance imaging alone. Invest Radiol. 2014;49:808-15.
Mirpour S, Mhlanga JC, Logeswaran P, Russo G, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. The role of PET/CT in the management of cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W192-W205.
Lee SI, Atri M. 2018 FIGO staging system for uterine cervical cancer: enter cross-sectional imaging. Radiology. 2019;292:15-24.
Steiner A, Narva S, Rinta-Kiikka I, Hietanen S, Hynninen J, Virtanen J. Diagnostic efficiency of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI alone, and SUV and ADC values in staging of primary uterine cervical cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2021;21:16.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging. 2014;38:464-469.
Kim SK, Choi HJ, Park SY, et al. Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2103-2109.
Miller TR, Grigsby PW. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:353-359.
Rahman WT, Wale DJ, Viglianti BL, et al. The impact of infection and inflammation in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Biomed Pharmacother. 2019;117:109168.
White NS, McDonald CR, Farid N, Kuperman JM, Kesari S, Dale AM. Improved conspicuity and delineation of high-grade primary and metastatic brain tumors using "restriction spectrum imaging": quantitative comparison with high B-value DWI and ADC. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:958-964.
Nie J, Zhang J, Gao J, et al. Diagnostic role of 18F-FDG PET/MRI in patients with gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0175401.
McGettigan M, Zulfiqar M, Shetty AS. Imaging of vaginal and vulvar malignancy. Radiol Clin North Am. 2023;61:651-670.
Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA. 2007;298:2289-2295.
Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Pelvic lymph node F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a prognostic biomarker in newly diagnosed patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:1469-1475.
Shih IL, Yen RF, Chen CA, et al. Standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient of endometrial cancer evaluated with integrated whole-body PET/MR: correlation with pathological prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42:1723-1732.
Nakamura K, Joja I, Fukushima C, et al. The preoperative SUVmax is superior to ADCmin of the primary tumour as a predictor of disease recurrence and survival in patients with endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:52-60.
Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, et al. FDG-PET/MRI with high-resolution DWI characterises the distinct phenotypes of endometrial cancer. Clin Radiol. 2020;75:209-215.
Network, N.C.C. Uterine Neoplasms, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clincal Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Available online: https: //www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2024).
Gadducci A, Cosio S, Fanucchi A, Cristofani R, Genazzani AR. An intensive follow-up does not change survival of patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Anticancer Res. 2000;20:1977-1984.
Bollineni VR, Ytre-Hauge S, Bollineni-Balabay O, Salvesen HB, Haldorsen IS. High diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in endometrial cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:879-885.
Tanaka T, Terai Y, Yamamoto K, Yamada T, Ohmichi M. The diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography and sentinel node biopsy in the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer: A retrospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e12522.
Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y. Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with endometrial cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2020 Oct;20:75.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI for staging of endometrial cancer: comparison withF-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:1672-1676.
Ironi G, Mapelli P, Bergamini A, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI in staging endometrial cancer: diagnostic and predictive value in a prospective cohort. Clin Nucl Med. 2022;47:e221-e229.
Gordon BA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F. Whole-body positron emission tomography: normal variations, pitfalls, and technical considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1675-1680.
Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61-77.
Yasuda S, Ide M, Takagi S, Shohtsu A. Intrauterine accumulation of F-18 FDG during menstruation. Clin Nucl Med. 1997;22:793-794.
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;27:22-24.
Fiaschetti V, Calabria F, Crusco S, et al. MR-PET fusion imaging in evaluating adnexal lesions: a preliminary study. Radiol Med. 2011;116:1288-1302.
Jónsdóttir B, Marcickiewicz J, Borgfeldt C, et al. Preoperative and intraoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer-A Swedish Gynecologic Cancer Group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1526-1533.
Expert Panel on GYN and OB Imaging; Kilcoyne A, Gottumukkala RV, Kang SK, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® staging and follow-up of primary vaginal cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18:S442-S455.
Preti M, Bucchi L, Micheletti L, Privitera S, et al. Four-decade trends in lymph node status of patients with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma in northern Italy. Sci Rep. 2021;11:5661.
Cohn DE, Dehdashti F, Gibb RK, et al. Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography for the detection of groin node metastases from vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:179-184.
Rufini V, Garganese G, Ieria FP, et al. Diagnostic performance of preoperative [18F]FDG-PET/CT for lymph node staging in vulvar cancer: a large single-centre study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:3303-3314.
