ABSTRACT
Gynecological cancers are ranked as the fourth most common type of cancer in the world. Although there are differences in the stage of the disease and histopathological subtypes to evaluate the treatment response, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) in patients with cervix, ovarian, endometrial and vulva-vaginal cancer seems to provide significant benefit in estimating the treatment response and, in certain cases, in the revision and regulation of the treatment protocol. The change in FDG uptake after different treatments, time of imaging, frequency of examination, and the effect on survival advantage should be evaluated and discussed on a patient basis. In the light of increasing evidence, it is observed that F-18 FDG PET/CT functional imaging has an important role as a monitoring tool in patients with gynecological cancer. In this review, we aimed to examine the role of F-18 FDG PET/CT, a metabolic imaging method, in the evaluation of response to treatment in gynecological malignancies. However, it is clear that more studies are needed to determine the clinical benefits of this modality.
References
1Bruni L, Albero G, Serrano B, et al. Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Summary Report. Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases Report WORLD, www.hpvcentre.net (2019).
2Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017;28:iv72-iv83.
3Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:7-30.
4Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E, et al. Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:419-423.
5Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424.
6Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2018 - SEER Statistics, https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2018/ (accessed June 6, 2021).
7Peungjesada S, Bhosale PR, Balachandran A, Iyer RB. Magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33:601-608.
8Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:103-104.
9Yagi S, Yahata T, Mabuchi Y, et al. Primary tumor SUVmax on preoperative FDG-PET/CT is a prognostic indicator in stage IA2-IIB cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2016;5:216-222.
10Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer 2007;110:1738-1744.
11Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in cervical cancer: relationship to prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2108-2113.
12Kidd 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.
13Liu FY, Yen TC, Chen MY, et al. Detection of hematogenous bone metastasis in cervical cancer: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2009;115:5470-5480.
14Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Roed H, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT scanning in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106:29-34.
15Haynes-Outlaw ED, Grigsby PW. The Role of FDG-PET/CT in Cervical Cancer: Diagnosis, Staging, Radiation Treatment Planning and Follow-Up. PET Clin 2010;5:435-446.
16Kim N, Park W, Cho WK, et al. Early Metabolic Response Assessed Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Image-Guided Intracavitary Brachytherapy Can Better Predict Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Cervical Cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2020 Dec 9.
17Grigsby PW. PET/CT imaging to guide cervical cancer therapy. Future Oncol 2009;5:953-8.
18Mackay HJ, Wenzel L, Mileshkin L. Nonsurgical management of cervical cancer: locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic disease, survivorship, and beyond. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2015:299-309.
19Gold MA. PET in cervical cancer--implications for 'staging,' treatment planning, assessment of prognosis, and prediction of response. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2008;6:37-45.
20Eifel PJ, Winter K, Morris M, et al. Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:872-880.
21Voglimacci M, Gabiache E, Lusque A, et al. Chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer without aortic lymph node involvement: can we consider metabolic parameters of pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT for treatment tailoring? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:1551-1559.
22Kidd EA, Thomas M, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Changes in cervical cancer FDG uptake during chemoradiation and association with response. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:116-122.
23Schwarz 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.
24Lucia F, Miranda O, Abgral R, et al. Use of Baseline 18 F-FDG PET/CT to Identify Initial Sub-Volumes Associated With Local Failure After Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. Front Oncol 2020;10:678.
25Siva S, Herschtal A, Thomas JM, et al. Impact of post-therapy positron emission tomography on prognostic stratification and surveillance after chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer. Cancer 2011;117:3981-3988.
26Zola P, Macchi C, Cibula D, et al. Follow-up in Gynecological Malignancies: A State of Art. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:1151-1164.
27Herrera FG, Breuneval T, Prior JO, Bourhis J, Ozsahin M. [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters as useful prognostic factors in cervical cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2016;11:43.
28Heron CW, Husband JE, Williams MP, Dobbs HJ, Cosgrove DO. The value of CT in the diagnosis of recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Radiol 1988;39:496-501.
29Wong TZ, Jones EL, Coleman RE. Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose for evaluating local and distant disease in patients with cervical cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6:55-62.
30Brooks RA, Rader JS, Dehdashti F, et al. Surveillance FDG-PET detection of asymptomatic recurrences in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:104-109.
31Chong A, Ha JM, Jeong SY, et al. Clinical Usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the Detection of Early Recurrence in Treated Cervical Cancer Patients with Unexplained Elevation of Serum Tumor Markers. Chonnam Med J 2013;49:230-236.
32Chung HH, Kim JW, Kang KW, et al. Predictive role of post-treatment [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:817-822.
33Meads C, Davenport C, Małysiak S, et al. Evaluating PET-CT in the detection and management of recurrent cervical cancer: systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy and subjective elicitation. BJOG 2014;121:398-407.
34Auguste P, Barton P, Meads C, et al. Evaluating PET-CT in routine surveillance and follow-up after treatment for cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2014;121:464-476.
35Ulaner GA, Lyall A. Identifying and distinguishing treatment effects and complications from malignancy at FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2013;33:1817-1834.
36du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer 2009;115:1234-1244.
37Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. Prognostic significance of systematic lymphadenectomy as part of primary debulking surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012;126:381-386.
38Ben-Haim S, Ell P. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med 2009;50:88-99.
39Harry VN, Gilbert FJ, Parkin DE. Predicting the response of advanced cervical and ovarian tumors to therapy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009;64:548-560.
40Avril N, Gourtsoyianni S, Reznek R. Gynecological cancers. Methods Mol Biol 2011;727:171-189.
41Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7445-7453.
42Hynninen J, Laasik M, Vallius T, et al. Clinical Value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Response Evaluation after Primary Treatment of Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018;30:507-514.
43Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, et al. Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology 2004;233:433-440.
44Chuang CM, Chou YJ, Yen MS, et al. The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Oncologist 2012;17:847-855.
45Obermair A, Sevelda P. Impact of second look laparotomy and secondary cytoreductive surgery at second-look laparotomy in ovarian cancer patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:432-436.
46Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent uterine cancer: comparison with PET and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:362-372.
47Bollineni 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.
48Motter A, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, et al. Continue NCCN Guidelines Panel Disclosures NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2021 Uterine Neoplasms NCCN Framework TM : Core Resources (Preliminary), http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/en/. (2021, accessed May 11, 2021).
49Stewart KD, Martinez AA, Weiner S, et al. Ten-year outcome including patterns of failure and toxicity for adjuvant whole abdominopelvic irradiation in high-risk and poor histologic feature patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:527-535.
50Brodeur MN, Samouëlian V, Dabi Y, Cormier B, Beauchemin MC, Barkati M. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy and brachytherapy in endometrial cancer with gross cervical involvement: a CHIRENDO research group study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31:78-84.
51Khouri OR, Frey MK, Musa F, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2019;84:281-285.
52Bogani G, Ditto A, Leone Roberti Maggiore U, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery for unresectable stage IVB Serous endometrial cancer. Tumori 2019;105:92-97.
53Vargo JA, Boisen MM, Comerci JT, et al. Neoadjuvant High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Followed By Extrafascial Hysterectomy for Locally Advanced Endometrial Cancer Clinically Extending to Cervix or Parametria. Brachytherapy 2015;14:S18.
54Philp L, Kanbergs A, Laurent JS, Growdon WB, Feltmate C, Goodman A. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2021;36:100725.
55Reinhold C, Ueno Y, Akin EA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment Evaluation and Follow-Up of Endometrial Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:472-486.
56Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Giles D, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay PM. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011;32:476-480.
57Kurra V, Krajewski KM, Jagannathan J, Giardino A, Berlin S, Ramaiya N. Typical and atypical metastatic sites of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Cancer Imaging 2013;13:113-122.
58Kadkhodayan S, Shahriari S, Treglia G, Yousefi Z, Sadeghi R. Accuracy of 18-F-FDG PET imaging in the follow up of endometrial cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2013;128:397-404.
59Saga T, Higashi T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of FDG-PET in the follow up of post-operative patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2003;17:197-203.
60Smith RA, Brooks D, Cokkinides V, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 201363:88-105.
61Siegel CL, Andreotti RF, Cardenes HR, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® pretreatment planning of invasive cancer of the cervix. J Am Coll Radiol 2012;9:395-402.
62Motter A, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyTM Cervical Cancer v.1.2021, https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf (2020, accessed June 1, 2021).
63Buchegger F, Viertl D, Baechler S, et al. 68Ga-NODAGA-RGDyK for αvβ3 integrin PET imaging. Preclinical investigation and dosimetry. Nuklearmedizin 2011;50:225-233.
64Lewis JS, Laforest R, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW, Welch MJ, Siegel BA. An imaging comparison of 64Cu-ATSM and 60Cu-ATSM in cancer of the uterine cervix. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1177-1182.
65Li F, Zhang Z, Cai J, et al. Primary Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation of 68Ga-DOTA-TMVP1 as a Novel VEGFR-3 PET Imaging Radiotracer in Gynecological Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:1318-1326.
66Zhao L, Pang Y, Luo Z, et al. Role of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis and comparison with [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48:1944-1955.
