Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT
Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on c...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2008-08, Vol.35 (8), p.1439-1448 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1448 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1439 |
| container_title | European Journal of Nuclear Medicine |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Kitajima, Kazuhiro Murakami, Koji Yamasaki, Erena Domeki, Yasushi Kaji, Yasushi Fukasawa, Ichio Inaba, Noriyuki Suganuma, Narufumi Sugimura, Kazuro |
| description | Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using
18
F-fluorodeoxyglucose with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management, compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.
Methods
One hundred thirty-two women previously treated for ovarian cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT, and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging, and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.
Results
Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 78.8% (52 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 84.8% (112 of 132), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 74.2% (49 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 82.6% (109 of 132), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 60.6% (40 of 66), 84.8% (56 of 66), and 72.7% (96 of 132), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran
Q
test:
p
= 0.0001,
p
= 0.018, and
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69351287</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69351287</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e4fa51b57fe9543d79bd1fa516ac7e030ab797b2d7b11a6759e79e6ac49588a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUhS0EoqXwAGyQxYJd2usk_mOHhv4gVWoXw9pynJuZVBN7sJMidn2HvgpPxJPgaEYUoVasbN_73XOudQh5y-CYAciTBFByXQCoAqQURfWMHDLBdCFB6ed_7hIOyKuUbgCYKpV-SQ6YqpniujwkP68xdiEO1jukoaO9H3EV7YgtPft8_uvu_vp0eeKCH6NNY4F-PYMtXSwzScc10ra3Kx9Sn-bpiG6KEf1Iw62NvfXUzXz8SF0YtrmSgqff-3H9uI8PvnjUy_qW_vV-TV50dpPwzf48Il_PTpeLi-Ly6vzL4tNl4WqArFB3lrOGyw41r6tW6qZlc0lYJxEqsI3Usilb2TBmheQapcbcrDVXylbVEfmw093G8G3CNJqhTw43G-sxTMkIXXFWKvlfsAQlBVMig-__AW_CFH3-hClZLbioGM8Q20EuhpQidmYb-8HGH4aBmYM3u-BNDt7MwZt51Xd74akZsH2Y2CedgXIHpNzyK4wPzk-r_gYnpbwi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214656315</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Kitajima, Kazuhiro ; Murakami, Koji ; Yamasaki, Erena ; Domeki, Yasushi ; Kaji, Yasushi ; Fukasawa, Ichio ; Inaba, Noriyuki ; Suganuma, Narufumi ; Sugimura, Kazuro</creator><creatorcontrib>Kitajima, Kazuhiro ; Murakami, Koji ; Yamasaki, Erena ; Domeki, Yasushi ; Kaji, Yasushi ; Fukasawa, Ichio ; Inaba, Noriyuki ; Suganuma, Narufumi ; Sugimura, Kazuro</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using
18
F-fluorodeoxyglucose with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management, compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.
Methods
One hundred thirty-two women previously treated for ovarian cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT, and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging, and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.
Results
Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 78.8% (52 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 84.8% (112 of 132), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 74.2% (49 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 82.6% (109 of 132), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 60.6% (40 of 66), 84.8% (56 of 66), and 72.7% (96 of 132), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran
Q
test:
p
= 0.0001,
p
= 0.018, and
p
< 0.0001, respectively). The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 51 of the 132 patients (39%) and had an effect on patient management in 16 patients (12%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and three patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT.
Conclusion
Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing ovarian cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1619-7070</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0340-6997</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1619-7089</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18418592</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Cardiology ; Comparative studies ; Contrast Media ; Female ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 ; Humans ; Imaging ; Integrated approach ; Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives ; Male ; Medical diagnosis ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis ; Nuclear Medicine ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Orthopedics ; Ovarian cancer ; Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Positron-Emission Tomography - methods ; Radiology ; Radiopharmaceuticals ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Subtraction Technique ; Systems Integration ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><ispartof>European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2008-08, Vol.35 (8), p.1439-1448</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e4fa51b57fe9543d79bd1fa516ac7e030ab797b2d7b11a6759e79e6ac49588a33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e4fa51b57fe9543d79bd1fa516ac7e030ab797b2d7b11a6759e79e6ac49588a33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418592$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kitajima, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murakami, Koji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamasaki, Erena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Domeki, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaji, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fukasawa, Ichio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Inaba, Noriyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suganuma, Narufumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimura, Kazuro</creatorcontrib><title>Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT</title><title>European Journal of Nuclear Medicine</title><addtitle>Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</addtitle><addtitle>Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</addtitle><description>Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using
18
F-fluorodeoxyglucose with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management, compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.
Methods
One hundred thirty-two women previously treated for ovarian cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT, and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging, and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.
Results
Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 78.8% (52 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 84.8% (112 of 132), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 74.2% (49 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 82.6% (109 of 132), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 60.6% (40 of 66), 84.8% (56 of 66), and 72.7% (96 of 132), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran
Q
test:
p
= 0.0001,
p
= 0.018, and
p
< 0.0001, respectively). The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 51 of the 132 patients (39%) and had an effect on patient management in 16 patients (12%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and three patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT.
Conclusion
Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing ovarian cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Integrated approach</subject><subject>Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Ovarian cancer</subject><subject>Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Subtraction Technique</subject><subject>Systems Integration</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><issn>1619-7070</issn><issn>0340-6997</issn><issn>1619-7089</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUhS0EoqXwAGyQxYJd2usk_mOHhv4gVWoXw9pynJuZVBN7sJMidn2HvgpPxJPgaEYUoVasbN_73XOudQh5y-CYAciTBFByXQCoAqQURfWMHDLBdCFB6ed_7hIOyKuUbgCYKpV-SQ6YqpniujwkP68xdiEO1jukoaO9H3EV7YgtPft8_uvu_vp0eeKCH6NNY4F-PYMtXSwzScc10ra3Kx9Sn-bpiG6KEf1Iw62NvfXUzXz8SF0YtrmSgqff-3H9uI8PvnjUy_qW_vV-TV50dpPwzf48Il_PTpeLi-Ly6vzL4tNl4WqArFB3lrOGyw41r6tW6qZlc0lYJxEqsI3Usilb2TBmheQapcbcrDVXylbVEfmw093G8G3CNJqhTw43G-sxTMkIXXFWKvlfsAQlBVMig-__AW_CFH3-hClZLbioGM8Q20EuhpQidmYb-8HGH4aBmYM3u-BNDt7MwZt51Xd74akZsH2Y2CedgXIHpNzyK4wPzk-r_gYnpbwi</recordid><startdate>20080801</startdate><enddate>20080801</enddate><creator>Kitajima, Kazuhiro</creator><creator>Murakami, Koji</creator><creator>Yamasaki, Erena</creator><creator>Domeki, Yasushi</creator><creator>Kaji, Yasushi</creator><creator>Fukasawa, Ichio</creator><creator>Inaba, Noriyuki</creator><creator>Suganuma, Narufumi</creator><creator>Sugimura, Kazuro</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080801</creationdate><title>Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT</title><author>Kitajima, Kazuhiro ; Murakami, Koji ; Yamasaki, Erena ; Domeki, Yasushi ; Kaji, Yasushi ; Fukasawa, Ichio ; Inaba, Noriyuki ; Suganuma, Narufumi ; Sugimura, Kazuro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e4fa51b57fe9543d79bd1fa516ac7e030ab797b2d7b11a6759e79e6ac49588a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Integrated approach</topic><topic>Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Ovarian cancer</topic><topic>Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Subtraction Technique</topic><topic>Systems Integration</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kitajima, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murakami, Koji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamasaki, Erena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Domeki, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaji, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fukasawa, Ichio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Inaba, Noriyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suganuma, Narufumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimura, Kazuro</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European Journal of Nuclear Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kitajima, Kazuhiro</au><au>Murakami, Koji</au><au>Yamasaki, Erena</au><au>Domeki, Yasushi</au><au>Kaji, Yasushi</au><au>Fukasawa, Ichio</au><au>Inaba, Noriyuki</au><au>Suganuma, Narufumi</au><au>Sugimura, Kazuro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT</atitle><jtitle>European Journal of Nuclear Medicine</jtitle><stitle>Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</stitle><addtitle>Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</addtitle><date>2008-08-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1439</spage><epage>1448</epage><pages>1439-1448</pages><issn>1619-7070</issn><issn>0340-6997</issn><eissn>1619-7089</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using
18
F-fluorodeoxyglucose with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management, compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.
Methods
One hundred thirty-two women previously treated for ovarian cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT, and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging, and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.
Results
Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 78.8% (52 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 84.8% (112 of 132), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 74.2% (49 of 66), 90.9% (60 of 66), and 82.6% (109 of 132), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 60.6% (40 of 66), 84.8% (56 of 66), and 72.7% (96 of 132), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran
Q
test:
p
= 0.0001,
p
= 0.018, and
p
< 0.0001, respectively). The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 51 of the 132 patients (39%) and had an effect on patient management in 16 patients (12%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and three patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT.
Conclusion
Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing ovarian cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>18418592</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1619-7070 |
| ispartof | European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2008-08, Vol.35 (8), p.1439-1448 |
| issn | 1619-7070 0340-6997 1619-7089 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69351287 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Cardiology Comparative studies Contrast Media Female Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 Humans Imaging Integrated approach Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives Male Medical diagnosis Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis Nuclear Medicine Oncology Original Article Orthopedics Ovarian cancer Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis Positron-Emission Tomography - methods Radiology Radiopharmaceuticals Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Subtraction Technique Systems Integration Tomography Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods |
| title | Performance of integrated FDG–PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG–PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T08%3A58%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20of%20integrated%20FDG%E2%80%93PET/contrast-enhanced%20CT%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20recurrent%20ovarian%20cancer:%20comparison%20with%20integrated%20FDG%E2%80%93PET/non-contrast-enhanced%20CT%20and%20enhanced%20CT&rft.jtitle=European%20Journal%20of%20Nuclear%20Medicine&rft.au=Kitajima,%20Kazuhiro&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1439&rft.epage=1448&rft.pages=1439-1448&rft.issn=1619-7070&rft.eissn=1619-7089&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00259-008-0776-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69351287%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214656315&rft_id=info:pmid/18418592&rfr_iscdi=true |