Preoperative imaging with positron emission tomography and computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) or contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scan in operable cervical cancer: a prospective study

We evaluated the accuracy of preoperative PET/CT and CECT for lymph node staging in cervical cancer, which is relevant in the context of recently revised staging. Patients with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB1–IB2 cervical cancer underwent preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT abdomen and pelvis. Lymph nodes in various anatomical stations (paraaortic, various right and left pelvic regions) were scored separately as involved or not involved on both imaging modalities and compared with histopathology. The sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT and CECT were estimated for each lymph node station, and all lymph node stations combined, per patient. The study population comprised 57 patients (stage IB1 37, IB2 19) with median age of 45 (32–64) years, 39 (68.7%) with squamous carcinoma, median tumor size of 3.1 (0.5–9.0) cm, mean (range) lymph node harvest of 23.5 (8–46), and 13 (22.8%) patients with histopathologically positive lymph node(s). The sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT for various pelvic lymph node stations were 22.2–100% and 96.3–100%, respectively, and of CECT were 22.2–100% and 96.2–100%, respectively. At patient level, for all lymph node stations combined, the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT and CECT were 53.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 26.8%–80.9%) and 90.5% (95% CI, 81.6%–99.4%), and 69.2% (95% CI, 44.1%–94.3%) and 95.0% (95% CI, 88.3%–100%), respectively. Primary tumor maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was the only independent prognostic factor for overall survival. The sensitivity of PET/CT and CECT for lymph node staging in operable cervical cancer is modest, and these modalities can miss lymph node involvement, but they have high specificity and, when indicative of lymph node involvement, may be clinically useful in triaging patients for primary chemoradiation therapy.

Early cervical cancer; Imaging; PET/CT; CECT

[1] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–249.

[2] Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2019; 145: 129–135.

[3] Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2000; 18: 1606–1613.

[4] Haldorsen IS, Lura N, Blaakær J, Fischerova D, Werner HMJ. What is the role of imaging at primary diagnostic work-up in uterine cervical cancer?Current Oncology Reports. 2019; 21: 77.

[5] Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A comprehensive comparison of CT, MRI, positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/CT, and diffusion weighted imaging-MRI for detecting the lymph nodes metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis based on 67 studies. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2017; 82: 209–222.

[6] Adam JA, van Diepen PR, Mom CH, Stoker J, van Eck-Smit BLF, Bipat S. [18F] FDG-PET or PET/CT in the evaluation of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 159: 588–596.

[7] Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y. Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: meta-analysis. Cancer Science. 2010; 101: 1471–1479.

[8] Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2001; 19: 3745–3749.

[9] Wright JD, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, Mutch DG, Huettner PC, Rader JS, et al. Preoperative lymph node staging of early-stage cervical carcinoma by [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2005; 104: 2484–2491.

[10] Chou HH, Chang TC, Yen TC, Ng KK, Hsueh S, Ma SY, et al. Low value of [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in primary staging of early-stage cervical cancer before radical hysterectomy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006; 24: 123–128.

[11] Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo S, Lee S, Kim J, Kim S, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 2006; 106: 914–922.

[12] Bentivegna E, Uzan C, Gouy S, Leboulleux S, Duvillard P, Lumbroso J, et al. Correlation between [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scan and histology of pelvic nodes in early-stage cervical cancer. Anticancer Research. 2010; 30: 1029–1032.

[13] Signorelli M, Guerra L, Montanelli L, Crivellaro C, Buda A, Dell’Anna T, et al. Preoperative staging of cervical cancer: is 18-FDG-PET/CT really effective in patients with early stage disease? Gynecologic Oncology. 2011; 123: 236–240.

[14] Driscoll DO, Halpenny D, Johnston C, Sheehy N, Keogan M. 18F-FDG-PET/CT is of limited value in primary staging of early stage cervical cancer. Abdominal Imaging. 2015; 40: 127–133.

[15] Jung W, Park KR, Lee K, Kim K, Lee J, Jeong S, et al. Value of imaging study in predicting pelvic lymph node metastases of uterine cervical cancer. Radiation Oncology Journal. 2017; 35: 340–348.

[16] Reyneke F, Snyman L, Lawal I, Lengana T, Vorster M, Sathekge M. Di-agnostic value of sentinel lymph node scintigraphy and 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. World Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2020; 19: 240–245.

[17] Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P, Mahantshetty U, Hawaldar R, Sastri (Chopra) S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with stage IB2, IIA, or IIB squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018; 36: 1548–1555.

[18] Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The will Rogers Phenomenon. New England Journal of Medicine. 1985; 312: 1604–1608.

[19] Zhang L, Sun H, Du S, Xu W, Xin J, Guo Q. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters for reflection of aggressiveness and prediction of prognosis in early-stage cervical cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2018; 39: 1045–1052.

[20] Liu S, Xia L, Yang Z, Ge H, Wang C, Pan H, et al. The feasibility of 18F-FDG PET/CT for predicting pathologic risk status in early-stage uterine cervical squamous cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2020; 20: 63.

[21] Xu C, Ma T, Sun H, Li X, Gao S. Markers of Prognosis for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Patients (Stage IB1, IB2) Undergoing Surgical Treatment. Frontiers in Oncology. 2021; 11: 659313.

[22] Chung HH, Kang SY, Ha S, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in early stage uterine cervical cancer. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2016; 27: e15.