Whole-body positron emission tomography with 18Ffluorodeoxyglucose is an effective method to detect extra-pelvic recurrence in uterine sarcomas

Purpose of investigation: To assess the clinical use of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the post-therapy surveillance of uterine sarcoma. Methods: Eight whole-body FDG-PET studies were performed in seven women with previously treated uterine sarcoma. Conventional image studies (computed tomography) and physical examinations were performed for follow-up. All FDG-PET studies were indicated to localize suspected recurrences noted by conventional methods. Results: The per case sensitivity of the FDG-PET studies and CT scans was 85.7% (6/7) and 100% (7/7), respectively (p = 0.174). FDG-PET was able to detect seven extrapelvic metastastic sites below the diaphragm (7/7, sensitivity: 100%), including the liver, spleen, paraaortic lymph node, spine and paracolic gutter, as well as pulmonary lesions in five patients, while the CT scan detected only three lesions (3/7, sensitivity: 42.9%; p = 0.070). FDG-PET detected only four recurrent pelvic lesions (4/6) and CT scan detected six (6/6 ) recurrent pelvic lesions (66.7% vs 100%, p = 0.455). Conclusions: The FDG-PET showed a better detection rate than the abdominal CT scan for extrapelvic metastatic lesions and a similar detection rate as well as abdominal CT scan. FDG-PET can serve as a useful detection tool for patients with uterine sarcomas because nearly 80% of recurrence involve an extrapelvic site.

FDG-PET; Recurrent uterine sarcoma; Post-treatment surveillance

[1] Anne T. O’Meara: “Uterine sarcomas: have we made any progress”. Curr .Opin. in Obstet. Gynecol., 2004, 16, 1.

[2] Disaia P.J., Creasman W.T.: “Sarcoma of uterus”. In: P.J. Disaia and W.T. Creasman (eds.), Clinical Gynecologic Oncology, 6th edition, St. Louis, MO, Mosby, 2002, 173.

[3] Michael C., Lois M.R., Snuha J., Yhomas W.B., Patricia J.E.: “Malignant mixed mullerian tumors of the uterus: analysis of patterns of failure, prognostic factors and treatment outcome”. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 2004, 58, 786.

[4] Goff B.A., Rice L.W., Fleischhacker D., Muntz H.G., Falkenberry S.S., Nikrui N. et al.: “Uterine leiomyosarcoma and endometrial stromal sarcoma: lymph node metastases and sites of recurrence”. Gynecol Oncol., 1993, 50, 105.

[5] Gadducci A., Landoni F., Sartori E., Zola P., Maggino T., Lissoni A. et al.: “Uterine leiomyosarcoma: analysis of treatment failures and survival”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1996, 62, 25.

[6] Mayerhofer K., Obermair A., Windbichler G., Petru E., Kaider A., Hefler L. et al.: “Leiomyosarcoma of the uterus: a clinicopathologic multicenter study of 71 cases”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1999, 74, 196.

[7] Omura G.A., Blessing J.A., Major F., Lifshitz S., Ehrlich C.E., Mangan C. et al.: “A randomized clinical trial of adjuvant adriamycin in uterine sarcomas: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study”. J. Clin. Oncol., 1985, 3, 1240.

[8] Hornback N.B., Omura G., Major F.J.: “Observations on the use of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with Stage I and II uterine sarcoma”. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol Phys., 1986, 12, 2127.

[9] Nordal RR., Thoresen SO.: “Uterine sarcomas in Norway 1956- 1992: incidence, survival and mortality”. Eu.r J. Cancer, 1997, 33, 907.

[10] Satoru S., Kohki Y., Shinichi I. et al.: “Preoperative diagnosis and treatment results in 106 patients with uterine sarcoma in Hokkaido, Japan”. Oncology, 2004, 67, 33.

[11] Kinkel K., Ariche M., Tardivon AA., Spatz A., Castaigne D., Lgomme C. et al.: “Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging”. Radiology, 1997, 204, 55.

[12] Siegelman E.S., Outwater E.K.: “Tissue characterization in thefemale pelvis by means of MR imaging”. Radiology, 1999, 212, 5.

[13] Ebner F., Kressel H.Y., Mintz M.C., Carlson J.A., Cohen E.K., Schiebler M. et al.: “Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the female pelvis: differentiation with MR imaging at 1.5 T”. Radiology, 1988, 166, 333.

[14] Connor J.P., Andrews J.I., Anderson B., Buller R.E.: “Computed tomography in endometrial carcinoma”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 95, 69.

[15] Feong Y.Y., Kang H.K., Chyng T.W., Fin F., Park F.G.: “Uterine cervical carcinoma after therapy: CT and MR imaging findings”. Radiographics, 2003, 23, 969.

[16] Moskovic E., MacSweeney E., Law M., Price A.: “Survival patterns of spread and prognostic factors in uterine sarcoma: a study of 76 patients”. Br. J. Radiol., 1993, 66, 791, 1009.

[17] Patsner B., Mann W.J.: “Use of serum CA-125 in monitoring patients with uterine sarcoma. A preliminary report”. Cancer, 1988, 62, 1355.

[18] Umesaki N., Tanaka T., Miyama M., Ogita S., Kawabe J., Okamura T. et al.: “Positron emission tomography using 2-[18F]-fluoro-2 -deoxy-D-glucose in the diagnosis of uterine leiomyosarcoma: A case report”. J. Nucl. Med., 2001, 25, 203.

[19] Umesaki N., Tanaka T., Miyama M., Kawamura N., Ogita S., Kawabe J. et al.: “Positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose of uterine sarcoma: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and power Doppler imaging”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2001, 80, 372.

[20] Jadvar H., Fischman A.J.: “Evalation of rare tumors with [F- 18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography”. Clin. Post. Imag., 1999, 2, 153.

[21] Murakami M., Tsukada H., Shida M., Watanabe M., Maeda H., Koido S. et al.: “Whole-body positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose for the detection of recurrence in uterine sarcoma”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer., 2006, 16, 854.

[22] Leitao M.M., Brennan M.F., Hensley M., Sonoda Y., Hummer A., Bhaskaran D. et al.: “Surgical resection of pulmonary and extrapulonary recurrences of uterine leiomyosarcoma”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2002, 87, 287.

[23] Dinh T.A., Oliva E.A., Fuller Jr. A.F., Lee H., Goodman A.: “The treatment of uterine leiomyosarcoma .Result from a 10-year experience (1990-1999) at the Massachusetts General Hospital”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2004, 92, 648.

[24] Bomanji J.B., Costa D.C., Ell P.J.: “Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology”. Lancet Oncol., 2001, 2, 157.

[25] Zimny M., Siggelkow W., Schroder W., Nowak B., Biemann S., Rath W. et al.: “2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2001, 83, 310.

[26] Jimenez-Bonilla J., Maldonado A., Morales S., Salud A., Xomeno M., Roman J. et al.: “Clinical impact of 18 F-FDG-PET in the suspicion of recurrent ovarian carcinoma based on elevated tumor marker serum levels”. Clin. Positron Imaging., 2000, 3, 231.

[27] Park D.H., Kim K.H., Park SY., Lee B.H., Choi C.W., Chin S.Y.: “Diagnosis of recurrent uterine cervical cancer: computed tomography versus positron emission tomography”. Korean. J. Radiol., 2000, 1, 151.

[28] Kerr I.G., Manji M.F., Powe J., Bakheet S., Al Suhaibani H., Subhi J.: “Positron emission tomography for the evaluation of metastases in patients with carcinoma of the cervix: A retrospective review”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2001, 81, 477.

[29] Pandit-Taskar N.: “Oncologic imaging in gynecologic malignancies”. J. Nucl. Med., 2005, 46, 1842.

[30] Wahl R.L.: “Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT”. J. Nucl. Med., 2004, 45, 82S.

[31] Belhocine T.: “An appraisal of 18F-FDG PET image in posttherapy surveillance of uterine cancers: clinical evidence and a research proposal”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2003, 13, 228.

[32] Nakamoto Y., Eisbruch S., Achtyes E.D., Sugawara Y., Reynolds K.R., Johnston C.M. et al.: “Prognostic value of positron emission tomography using F-18-flurodexoyglucose in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2002, 84, 289.