Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Роль ПЭТ/КТ в онкогинекологии (обзор литературы)

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Цель исследования: рассмотреть современные возможности позитронно-эмиссионной томографии, совмещенной с компьютерной томографией (ПЭТ/КТ) с фтордезоксиглюкозой (ФДГ), в диагностике онкологических образований в гинекологии.Материал и методы. Поиск, отбор и оценка существующих зарубежных и отечественных исследований, включенных в рецензируемые базы E-library, PubMed, GoogleScholar, Scopus.Результаты. В статье обобщается существующая доказательная база для установления клинического значения и новых возможностей применения ПЭТ/КТ с ФДГ при распространенных гинекологических злокачественных новообразованиях.Заключение. Использование ПЭТ/КТ с ФДГ может оказать значительное влияние на ведение пациентов за счет улучшения стадирования рака, влияния на выбор пациентов для лечения и выявления раннего рецидива заболевания.

Ключевые слова:
рак шейки матки, гинекологическая онкология, рак яичников, рак матки, рак вульвы, ПЭТ/КТ, cervical cancer, gynecological oncology, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, vulvar cancer, PET/CT

Литература:
1.Lerman H., Metser U., Grisaru D. et al. Normal and abnormal 18 F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 2004; 45 (2): 266–271. PMID: 14960646.1
2.Kim T.H., Kim M.R., Jung Y., An Y.S. Relationship between sex hormones levels and 18 F-FDG uptake by the ovaries in premenopausal woman. Radiol. Oncol. 2019; 53 (3): 293–299. http://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2019-0035
3.Burger I.A., Scheiner D.A., Crook D.W. et al. FDG uptake in vaginal tampons is caused by urinary contamination and related to tampon position. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2011; 38 (1): 90–96. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1618-7
4.Najmabadi S., Schliep K.C., Simonsen S.E. et al. Menstrual bleeding, cycle length, and follicular and luteal phase lengths in women without known subfertility: A pooled analysis of three cohorts. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 2020; 34 (3): 318–327. http://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12644
5.Nishizawa S., Inubushi M., Okada H. Physiological 18 F-FDG uptake in the ovaries and uterus of healthy female volunteers. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2005; 32 (5): 549–556. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1703-x
6.Costescu D., Chawla R., Hughes R. et al. Discontinuation rates of intrauterine contraception due to unfavourable bleeding: a systematic review. BMC Womens Health. 2022; 22 (1): 82. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01657-6
7.Sosna J., Chisin R., Klein M. FDG positron emission tomographic imaging of the effect of an intrauterine device. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2002; 27 (2): 128–129. http://doi.org/10.1097/00003072-200202000-00011
8.Gold E.B., Crawford S.L., Avis N.E. et al. Factors related to age at natural menopause: longitudinal analyses from SWAN. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2013; 178 (1): 70–83. http://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws421
9.Gill M.M., Sia W., Hoskinson M. et al. The use of PET/CT in pregnancy: A case report of malignant parathyroid carcinoma and a review of the literature. Obstet. Med. 2018; 11 (1): 45–49. http://doi.org/10.1177/1753495X17724950
10.Hsieh T.C., Wu Y.C., Sun S.S. et al. FDG PET/CT of a late-term pregnant woman with breast cancer. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2012; 37 (5): 489–491. http://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182478a91
11.Lin E. FDG PET appearance of a postpartum uterus. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2006; 31 (3): 159–160. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.rlu.0000200726.93779.d9
12.Williams A.R.W. Uterine fibroids – what's new? F1000Res. 2017; 6: 2109. Published 2017 Dec 7. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12172.1
13.Kitajima K., Murakami K., Kaji Y., Sugimura K. Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010; 195 (3): 737–743. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.4074
14.Pencharz D., Nathan M., Wagner T.L. Evidence-based management of incidental focal uptake of fluoro-deoxyglucose on PET-CT. Br. J. Radiol. 2018; 91 (1084): 20170774. http://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170774
15.Kusunoki S., Terao Y., Ujihira T. et al. Efficacy of PET/CT to exclude leiomyoma in patients with lesions suspicious for uterine sarcoma on MRI. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 56 (4): 508–513. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2017.05.003
16.Micco M., Sala E., Lakhman Y. et al. Imaging Features of Uncommon Gynecologic Cancers. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015; 205 (6): 1346–1359. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12695
17.Asano H., Isoe T., Ito YM. et al. Status of the Current Treatment Options and Potential Future Targets in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: A Review. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14 (5): 1180. http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14051180
18.Choi I.H, Jin S.Y., Jeen Y.M. et al. Tamoxifen-associated polypoid endometriosis mimicking an ovarian neoplasm. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2015; 58 (4): 327–330. http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2015.58.4.327
19.Garcia L., Isaacson K. Adenomyosis: review of the literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011; 18 (4): 428–437. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.004
20.Yu J.I., Huh S.J., Kim Y.I. et al. Variable uterine uptake of FDG in adenomyosis during concurrent chemoradiation therapy for cervical cancer. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2011; 29 (3): 214–217. http://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2011.29.3.214
21.Sobczuk K., Sobczuk A. New classification system of endometrial hyperplasia WHO 2014 and its clinical implications. Prz. Menopauzalny. 2017; 16 (3): 107–111. http://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2017.70589
22.MacLean J.A. 2nd, Hayashi K. Progesterone Actions and Resistance in Gynecological Disorders. Cells. 2022; 11 (4): 647. http://doi.org/10.3390/cells11040647
23.Tsujikawa T., Okazawa H., Yoshida Y. et al. Distinctive FDG and FES accumulation pattern of two tamoxifen-treated patients with endometrial hyperplasia. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2008; 22 (1): 73–77. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-007-0075-2
24.Arbyn M., Weiderpass E., Bruni L. et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob. Health. 2020; 8 (2): e191–e203. http://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6. Epub 2019 Dec 4. Erratum in: Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Jan; 10 (1): e41.
25.Guimaraes Y.M., Godoy L.R., Longatto-Filho A., Reis R.D. Management of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Literature Review. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14 (3): 575. http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030575
26.Kidd E.A., Spencer C.R., Huettner P.C. et al. Cervical cancer histology and tumor differentiation affect 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Cancer. 2009; 115 (15): 3548–3554. http://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24400
27.Sharp H.J., Pinnix C.C., Jhingran A. et al. PET/CT in a patient with adenoma malignum of the uterine cervix. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2011; 36 (6): 468–469. http://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e31820aa346
28.Wildenberg J.C., Yam B.L., Langer J.E., Jones L.P. US of the Nongravid Cervix with Multimodality Imaging Correlation: Normal Appearance, Pathologic Conditions, and Diagnostic Pitfalls. Radiographics. 2016; 36 (2): 596–617. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150155
29.Ferrari F., Forte S., Valenti G. et al. Current Treatment Options for Cervical Leiomyomas: A Systematic Review of Literature. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021; 57 (2): 92. http://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020092
30.Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021; 71 (3): 209–249. http://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
31.Heintz A.P., Odicino F., Maisonneuve P. et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2006; 95, Suppl. 1: S161–192. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(06)60033-7
32.Avesani G., Caliolo G., Gui B. et al. Pearls and Potential Pitfalls for Correct Diagnosis of Ovarian Cystadenofibroma in MRI: A Pictorial Essay. Korean J. Radiol. 2021; 22 (11): 1809–1821. http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.1312
33.Hu X., Li D., Liang Z. et al. Indirect comparison of the diagnostic performance of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021; 21 (1): 1080. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08815-3
34.Li J., Yan R., Lei J., Jiang C. Comparison of PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis. Abdom. Imaging. 2015; 40 (7): 2660–2666. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0418-8
35.Prat J. Ovarian carcinomas: five distinct diseases with different origins, genetic alterations, and clinico pathological features. Virchows. Arch. 2012; 460 (3): 237–249. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1203-5
36.Delgado Bolton R.C., Aide N., Colletti P.M. et al. EANM guideline on the role of 2-FDG PET/CT in diagnosis, staging, prognostic value, therapy assessment and restaging of ovarian cancer, endorsed by the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2021; 48 (10): 3286–3302. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05450-9
37.Shepherd T.G., Dick F.A. Principles of dormancy evident in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cell. Div. 2022; 17 (1): 2. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13008-022-00079-y
38.Campos N.M.F., Almeida V., Curvo Semedo L. Peritoneal disease: key imaging findings that help in the differential diagnosis. Br. J. Radiol. 2022; 95 (1130): 20210346. http://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210346
39.Sanli Y., Turkmen C., Bakir B. et al. Diagnostic value of PET/CT is similar to that of conventional MRI and even better for detecting small peritoneal implants in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2012; 33 (5): 509–515. http://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834fc5bf
40.Yilmaz M.T., Gurlek E., Gultekin M. et al. Ovarian Carcinoma Presenting With a Large Cervical Mass. Cureus. 2022; 14 (1): e20994. http://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.20994
41.van 't Sant I., Engbersen M.P., Bhairosing P.A. et al. Diagnostic performance of imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastases: a meta-analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2020; 30 (6): 3101–3112. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06524-x
42.Rangan K., Ora M., Israrahmed A., Gambhir S. Krukenburg Tumors Arising from Rare Primary Sites: Role of 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography in Management and Outcome. Indian J. Nucl. Med. 2019; 34 (4): 302–306. http://doi.org/10.4103/ijnm.IJNM_86_19
43.McCluggage W.G. The pathology of and controversial aspects of ovarian borderline tumours. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2010; 22 (5): 462–472. http://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0b013e32833b0dc1
44.Nusbaum D.J., Mandelbaum R.S., Machida H. et al. Significance of lymph node ratio on survival of women with borderline ovarian tumors. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2020; 301 (5): 1289–1298. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05535-0
45.Oral E., Aydin O., Kumbak B.A. et al. Concomitant endometriosis in malignant and borderline ovarian tumours. J. Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 38 (8): 1104–1109. http://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2018.1441815
46.Barlow E.L., Kang Y.J., Hacker N.F., Canfell K. Changing Trends in Vulvar Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates in Australia Since 1982. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2015; 25 (9): 1683–1689. http://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000547
47.Matsutani H., Nakai G., Yamada T. et al. MRI and FDG PET/ CT Findings for Borderline Brenner Tumor of the Ovary: A Case Report and Literature Review. Case Rep. Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 2020: 8878649. http://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8878649
48.Mishra T.S., Jena S.K., Kumari S. et al. Cecal dermoid masquerading dermoid cyst of ovary: a case report and review of the literature. J. Med. Case Rep. 2021; 15 (1): 38. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-020-02570-y
49.Yokoyama T., Takehara K., Yamamoto Y. et al. The usefulness of 18 F-FDG-PET/CT in discriminating benign from malignant ovarian teratomas. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 20 (5): 960–966. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0800-0
50.Liang L., Zhang Y., Malpica A. et al. Gliomatosis peritonei: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 21 cases. Mod. Pathol. 2015; 28 (12): 1613–1620. http://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.116
51.Young R.H. Ovarian sex cord-stromal tumours and their mimics. Pathology. 2018; 50 (1): 5–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2017.09.007
52.Elsherif S., Bourne M., Soule E. et al. Multimodality imaging and genomics of granulosa cell tumors. Abdom. Radiol (NY). 2020; 45 (3): 812–827. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02172-3
53.Zhang J.J., Cao D.Y., Yang J.X., Shen K. Ovarian metastasis from nongynecologic primary sites: a retrospective analysis of 177 cases and 13-year experience. J. Ovarian Res. 2020; 13 (1): 128. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-020-00714-8
54.Bennett J.A., Young R.H., Chuang A.Y., Lerwill M.F. Ovarian Metastases of Breast Cancers With Signet Ring Cells: A Report of 17 Cases Including 14 Krukenberg Tumors. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2018; 37 (6): 507–515. http://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000462
55.Adams T.S., Cuello M.A. Cancer of the vagina. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2018; 143, Suppl. 2: 14–21. http://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12610
56.Salem A.E., Fine G.C., Covington M.F. et al. PET-CT in Clinical Adult Oncology-IV. Gynecologic and Genitourinary Malignancies. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14 (12): 3000. http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14123000
57.Chow L., Tsui B.Q., Bahrami S. et al. Gynecologic tumor board: a radiologist's guide to vulvar and vaginal malignancies. Abdom. Radiol. (NY). 2021; 46 (12): 5669–5686. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03209-2
58.Bucchi L., Pizzato M., Rosso S., Ferretti S. New Insights into the Epidemiology of Vulvar Cancer: Systematic Literature Review for an Update of Incidence and Risk Factors. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14 (2): 389. http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14020389
59.Omole F., Simmons B.J., Hacker Y. Management of Bartholin's duct cyst and gland abscess. Am. Fam. Physician. 2003; 68 (1): 135–140. PMID: 12887119
60.Shafrir A.L., Farland L.V., Shah D.K. et al. Risk for and consequences of endometriosis: A critical epidemiologic review. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 51: 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.06.001
61.Balogova S., Darai E., Noskovicova L. et al. Interference of Known or Suspected Endometriosis in Reporting FDG PET/CT Performed in Another Indication. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2022; 47 (4): 305–313. http://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000004049
62.Hirsch M., Duffy J., Davis C.J. et al.; International Collaboration to Harmonise Outcomes and Measures for Endometriosis. Diagnostic accuracy of cancer antigen 125 for endometriosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BJOG. 2016; 123 (11): 1761–1768. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14055
63.Sadowski E.A., Pirasteh A., McMillan A.B. et al. PET/MR imaging in gynecologic cancer: tips for differentiating normal gynecologic anatomy and benign pathology versus cancer. Abdom. Radiol. (NY). 2021. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03264-9. Epub ahead of print
64.Garg G., Benchekroun M.T., Abraham T. FDG-PET/CT in the Postoperative Period: Utility, Expected Findings, Complications, and Pitfalls. Semin. Nucl. Med. 2017; 47 (6): 579–594. http://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2017.07.005
65.van Kol K., Ebisch R., Piek J. et al. Adjuvant Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Patients Treated with Chemoradiation Therapy: A Systematic Review on the Pathology-Proven Residual Disease Rate. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13 (24): 6190. http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13246190
66.Brunham R.C., Gottlieb S.L., Paavonen J. Pelvic inflammatory disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 372 (21): 2039–2048. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1411426
67.Revzin M.V., Mathur M., Dave H.B. et al. Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: Multimodality Imaging Approach with Clinical-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics. 2016; 36 (5): 1579–1596. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150202
68.Drayer S.M., Shank J.J. Infectious diseases mimicking ovarian carcinomatosis. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep. 2018; 26: 29–31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2018.08.008
69.Sharma J.B., Karmakar D., Kumar R. et al. Comparison of PET/CT with other imaging modalities in women with genital tuberculosis. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2012; 118 (2): 123–128. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.02.020
70.Dejanovic D., Ahnlide J.A., Nilsson C. et al. Pelvic Actinomycosis Associated with an Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Demonstrated on F-18 FDG PET/ CT. Diagnostics (Basel). 2015; 5 (3): 369–371. http://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics5030369
71.Eskarous H., Pingili A., Venugopal D. Abdominal actinomycosis mimicking malignancy: A case report. IDCases. 2021; 25: e01252. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.idcr.2021.e01252
72.Epifani A.G., Cassini D., Cirocchi R. et al. Right sided diverticulitis in western countries: A review. Wld J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2021; 13 (12): 1721–1735. http://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v13.i12.1721

The role of PET/CT in oncogynecology (literature review)

Purpose: to consider the modern possibilities of positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET/CT) with FDG in the diagnosis of oncological formations in gynecology.Materials and methods. Search, selection and evaluation of existing foreign and domestic research included in the peer-reviewed E-library, PubMed, GoogleScholar, Scopus.Results. This article summarizes the existing evidence base to establish the clinical relevance and new possibilities for the use of FDG PET/CT in common gynecological malignancies.Conclusion. The use of FDG PET/CT can have a significant impact on patient management by improving cancer staging, influencing patient choice for treatment, and detecting early disease recurrence.

Keywords:
рак шейки матки, гинекологическая онкология, рак яичников, рак матки, рак вульвы, ПЭТ/КТ, cervical cancer, gynecological oncology, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, vulvar cancer, PET/CT