Journals / Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of fdg-pet/ct and mr with diffusion- weighted ımaging for assessing peritoneal ımplants in patients with gynecologic neoplasms

Jinekolojik tümörlü hastalarda batın içi implantların saptanmasında diffüzyon ağırlıklı mrg tetkikinin pet-bt ile karşılaştırılması

Pages
121–127
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On a lesion-based analysis, overall lesion num- bers for PET-CT and MRI+DWI were significantly different (p<0,05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Our aim was to determine the sensitivity and comparison of abdominal MRI, diffusion weighted MRI (DWI), PET-CT in detecting peritoneal implants in patients with gynecologic neoplasms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Twenty-one oncology patients underwent abdominal and pelvic MRI, diffusion weighted MRI with a b value of 0-500-1000 s/mm2 and whole body PET-CT for follow-up.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On a lesion-based analysis, overall lesion num- bers for PET-CT and MRI+DWI were significantly different (p<0,05).
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Our aim was to determine the sensitivity and comparison of abdominal MRI, diffusion weighted MRI (DWI), PET-CT in detecting peritoneal implants in patients with gynecologic neoplasms. Material and Methods: Twenty-one patients with gyneco- logical malignant tumors were enrolled in this retrospective study. Twenty-one oncology patients underwent abdominal and pelvic MRI, diffusion weighted MRI with a b value of 0-500-1000 s/mm2 and whole body PET-CT for follow-up. All MRI images were evaluated by a radiologists and PET- CT images were reviewed by a nuclear medicine physici- an. The results were compared with surgery or laparotomy exploratis, follow-up MRI or CT at a varying time between 2 and 12 months from the initial MRI, and moreover they were also evaluated with laboratory values and clinical outcomes at the 12 to 36th month from the initial MRI. Results: Forty lesions were identified with PET-CT, forty- nine lesions with MRI and 65 lesions with MRI+DWI. In 8 patients there were no implants with all imaging modalities. Although PET-CT and MRI were negative for two patients, MRI+DWI was positive for them. And also PET-CT was negative for one patient whereas MRI and MRI+DWI was positive. On a lesion-based analysis, overall lesion num- bers for PET-CT and MRI+DWI were significantly different (p<0,05). Conclusion: In our study we found with MRI and MRI+DWI more implants than PET-CT. DWI which may be an alter- native to PET-CT with conventional MRI can improve the sensitivity in depicting peritoneal implants.

Özet

Amaç: Jinekolojik maligniteli hastalarda peritoneal imp- lant saptamada rutin abdominal MRG, diffüzyon ağırlıklı görüntüler (DAG) ve PET-BT tetkiklerinin duyarlılıklarını saptamak ve birbirleri ile karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Jinekolojik tümör nedeniyle takip edi- len 21 hasta çalışmamıza dâhil edildi. Hastalara PET-BT, tüm batın MRG ve b 0-500-1000 s/mm2 değeri kullanılarak batına yönelik diffüzyon ağırlıklı (DAG) çekimler yapıldı. PET-BT incelemesi nükleer tıp uzmanı tarafından, MRG ve DAG ise radyoloji uzmanı tarafından değerlendirildi. Batın içi implantlar, lezyon sayılarına göre standart referansla karşılaştırılıp değerlendirildi. Bulgular: PET-BT incelemesinde toplam 40 lezyon izle- nirken, MRGde 49, MRG ve DAG birlikte değerlendiril- diğinde 65 lezyon raporlandı. Tüm görüntüleme metodla- rı ile toplam 8 hastada lezyon izlenmedi. İki hastamızda MRG+DAGte lezyon izlenirken, MRG ve PET-BTde iz- lenmedi. Bir hastada ise MRG ve MRG+DAGde lezyon izlenirken PET-BTde lezyon izlenmedi. MRG+DAGde iz- lenen lezyon sayısı, PET-BT ile karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı derecede fark izlendi. Sonuç: Biz bu çalışmada kontrastlı MRG ve MRG+DAG ile PET-BTye göre daha fazla lezyon bulduk. PET-BTye alternatif olabilecek diffüzyon ağırlıklı görüntüleme, kon- vansiyonel MRGe eklenerek peritoneal implant taramada daha duyarlı sonuçlar elde edilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDİL, İ., BAKIR, B., YILMAZ, F., TÜRKAY, R., TUNACI, M., HOCAOĞLU, E., ŞANLI, Y. (2014). Comparison of fdg-pet/ct and mr with diffusion- weighted ımaging for assessing peritoneal ımplants in patients with gynecologic neoplasms. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3, 121–127. https://ajindex.com/articles/340741

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Dirisamer A, Schima W, Heinisch M, Weber M. Detec- tion of histologically proven peritoneal carcinomatosis with fused 18F-FDG-PET/MDCT. European Journal of Radiology 2009;69:536-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.032 2.Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D. The role of 18-F FDG PET in assessing therapy responce in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 2009;1:64- 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057257 3.DeGaetano AM, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, et al. Imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis with FDG PET-CT: diag- nostic patterns, case examples and pitfalls. Abdom Ima- ging 2009;34:391-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9405-7 4.Cotte E, Passot G, Gilly FN, Glehen O. Selection of patients and staging of peritoneal surface malignancies. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2010;15:31-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.31 5. DeGaetano AM, Calcagni ML, Rufini V. Imaging of pe- ritoneal carcinomatosis with FDG PET-CT: diagnostic patterns, case examples and pitfalls. Abdom Imaging 2009;34:391-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9405-7 6. Pannu HK et al. PET-CT detection of abdominal recurren- ce of ovarian cancer. Abdom Imaging 2004;39:398-403. 7. de Bree E, Koops W, Kro ̈ger R, et al. Peritoneal carci- nomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin: corre- lation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. J Surg On- col 2004;86:64-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.20049 8. Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW. Diagnostic Ultrasound volume II. Forth Edition.
  2. Elselvier, Phila- delphia, 2011. 9. Higashi T, Saga T, Nakamoto Y, Ishimori T et al. Relati- onship between retention index in dual-phase 18F FDG- PET and hexokinase-II and glucose transporter-1 exp- ression in pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9405-7 10. Funicelli L, Travaini L, Landoni F et al. Peritoneal carci- nomatosis from ovarian cancer:the role of CT and [18F] FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 2010;35:701-707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9578-8 11. Komori T, Narabayashi I, Matsuki M et al. 2-[Fluorine- 18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission to- mography/computed tomography versus whole-body diffusion-weighted MI for detection of malignant le- sions: initial experience. Ann Nucl Med 2007;21:209- 215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12149-007-0010-6