Characterization of malignant ovarian mass on [18F]FDG PET/CT: using metabolic indices and degree of solidity.

BACKGROUND: The utility of [18F]FDG PET/CT for characterizing malignant ovarian mass has not been extensively studied. Here, we investigated various parameters that could be useful to differentiate malignant ovarian mass. METHODS: We enrolled 51 female patients (53.4±15.0 years), with 86 ovarian masses, who underwent pretreatment [18F]FDG PET/CT. Thirty six lesions were histopathologically confirmed with ovarian serous adenocarcinoma. Thirty one ovarian masses from gastric cancer and 19 masses from colorectal cancer were diagnosed by histopathological study or clinical follow-up. Ovarian masses were evaluated by size, solidity, and metabolic indices. The degree of solidity was scored from 1 to 5 according to the portion of solid and cyst. Metabolic activity was scored to be either positive (≥ liver) or negative (< liver). SUVmax (SUVovary) and the ratio of SUVmax of ovary to SUVmean of the liver (ovary/L ratio) were performed. Age, bilaterality and level of CA 125 were also compared. In statistical analysis, categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square test, while continuous variables were evaluated either independent student's t-test or Mann-Whitney Test. Receiveroperating-characteristic analysis was used to obtain optimal cutoff values. RESULTS: Serous adenocarcinoma had significantly higher score in all metabolic indices over metastasis. However, there were no differences in all metabolic indices in ovarian metastasis. In contrast, solidity was different between metastatic mass from gastric and colorectal cancer. Ovarian metastasis from gastric cancer was significantly solid compared with that from colorectal cancer. In comparison of all three masses, solidity and all metabolic indices were significantly different. Patients with serous adenocarcinoma were older and had higher CA-125 level. Between metastases from gastric and colorectal cancer, there were no differences in age, bilaterality and CA-125. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic indices such as SUVovary and ovary/L ratio could be useful to differentiate serous adenocarcinoma from metastasis. Furthermore, the degree of solidity could play a role in predicting the origin of metastasis.

The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of an integrated Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18 FDG) PET/CT-mammography (mammo-PET/CT) with conventional torso PET/CT (supine-PET/CT) and MR-mammography for initial assessment of breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty women (52.0 ± 12.0 years) with breast cancer who underwent supine-PET/CT, mammo-PET/CT, and MR-mammography from April 2009 to August 2009 were enrolled in the study. We compared the size of the tumour, tumour to chest wall distance, tumour to skin distance, volume of axillary fossa, and number of meta-static axillary lymph nodes between supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT. Next, we assessed the difference of focality of primary breast tumour and tumour size in mammo-PET/CT and MR-mammography. Histopathologic findings served as the standard of reference. RESULTS: In the comparison between supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT, significant differences were found in the tumour size (supine-PET/CT: 1.3 ± 0.6 cm, mammo-PET/CT: 1.5 ± 0.6 cm, p < 0.001), tumour to thoracic wall distance (1.8 ± 0.9 cm, 2.2 ± 2.1 cm, p < 0.001), and tumour to skin distance (1.5 ± 0.8 cm, 2.1 ± 1.4 cm, p < 0.001). The volume of axillary fossa was significantly wider in mammo-PET/CT than supine-PET/CT (21.7 ± 8.7 cm(3) vs. 23.4 ± 10.4 cm(3), p = 0.03). Mammo-PET/CT provided more correct definition of the T-stage of the primary tumour than did supine-PET/CT (72.5% vs. 67.5%). No significant difference was found in the number of metastatic axillary lymph nodes. Compared with MR-mammography, mammo-PET/CT provided more correct classification of the focality of lesion than did MR-mammography (95% vs. 90%). In the T-stage, 72.5% of cases with mammo-PET/CT and 70% of cases with MR-mammography showed correspondence with pathologic results. CONCLUSIONS: Mammo-PET/CT provided more correct definition of the T-stage and evaluation of axillary fossa may also be delineated more clearly than with supine-PET/CT. The initial assessment of mammo-PET/CT would be more useful than MR-mammography because the mammo-PET/CT indicates similar accuracy with MR-mammography for decision of T-stage of primary breast tumour and more correct than MR-mammography for defining focality of lesion.