title: Low-dose non-enhanced CT versus full-dose contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for the diagnosis of uterine cancer recurrence.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate low-dose non-enhanced CT (ldCT) and full-dose contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) in integrated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT studies for restaging of uterine cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  A group of 100 women who had undergone treatment for uterine cervical (n=55) or endometrial cancer (n=45) underwent a conventional PET/CT scans with ldCT, and then a ceCT scan. Two observers retrospectively reviewed and interpreted the PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT images in consensus using a three-point grading scale (negative, equivocal, or positive) per patient and per lesion. Final diagnoses were obtained by histopathological examination, or clinical follow-up for at least 6 months.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/ceCT were 90% (27/30), 97% (68/70) and 95% (95/100), respectively, whereas those of PET/ldCT were 83% (25/30), 94% (66/70) and 91% (91/100), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy did not significantly differ between two methods (McNemar test, p=0.48, p=0.48, and p=0.13, respectively). There were 52 sites of lesion recurrence: 12 pelvic lymph node (LN), 11 local recurrence, 8 peritoneum, 7 abdominal LN, 5 lung, 3 supraclavicular LN, 3 liver, 2 mediastinal LN, and 1 muscle and bone. The grading results for the 52 sites of recurrence were: negative 5, equivocal 0 and positive 47 for PET/ceCT, and negative 5, equivocal 4 and positive 43 for PET/ldCT, respectively. Four equivocal regions by PET/ldCT (local recurrence, pelvic LN metastasis, liver metastasis and muscle metastasis) were correctly interpreted as positive by PET/ceCT.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  PET/ceCT is an accurate imaging modality for the assessment of uterine cancer recurrence. Its use reduces the frequency of equivocal interpretations.
authors.affiliation: Department of PET Diagnosis, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, 2-2 Minatojima-Nakamachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe 650-0047, Japan. kitajima@med.kobe-u.ac.jp
authors.forename: Kazuhiro
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kitajima
authors.forename: Kayo
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Suzuki
authors.forename: Yuji
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Nakamoto
authors.forename: Yumiko
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Onishi
authors.forename: Setsu
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sakamoto
authors.forename: Michio
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Senda
authors.forename: Masato
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kita
authors.forename: Kazuro
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Sugimura
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003287:Contrast Media; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000379:methods*; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D012008:Recurrence; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*; D014594:Uterine Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Apr;34(4):472-9
references.pmid: 17106701
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):354-61
references.pmid: 18287263
references.citation: Semin Nucl Med. 2003 Jul;33(3):228-37
references.pmid: 12931324
references.citation: Eur J Radiol. 2008 Sep;67(3):508-13
references.pmid: 17904324
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2008 Oct;18(10):2040-7
references.pmid: 18425518
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1988 Jul;30(3):381-7
references.pmid: 3391421
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Dec;36(12):1952-9
references.pmid: 19585114
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2004 Jan;45 Suppl 1:56S-65S
references.pmid: 14736836
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Feb;186(2):308-19
references.pmid: 16423932
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2006 Oct;47(10):1643-8
references.pmid: 17015900
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36(3):362-72
references.pmid: 18931841
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Nov-Dec;18(6):1332-8
references.pmid: 18298562
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Oct;35(10):1912-20
references.pmid: 18682935
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Aug;35(8):1439-48
references.pmid: 18418592
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Mar;104(3):529-34
references.pmid: 17049971
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2000 Aug;41(8):1369-79
references.pmid: 10945530
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2007 Jun;80(954):437-45
references.pmid: 17329683
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 2002 Mar;47(3):173-89; discussion 189-90
references.pmid: 11933681
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2005 Jul;46(7):1225-39
references.pmid: 16000293
references.citation: Ann Nucl Med. 2008 Feb;22(2):103-9
references.pmid: 18311534
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jun;35(6):1081-8
references.pmid: 18180917
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2008 Sep;49(9):1408-13
references.pmid: 18703604
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Sep;36(9):1388-96
references.pmid: 19370346
references.citation: Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):823-9
references.pmid: 15273335
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Jan;34(1):36-44
references.pmid: 16896664
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Oct;34(10):1627-34
references.pmid: 17530248