Abstract
Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) is the next-generation hybrid imaging, combining the strengths of MRI and PET in a single examination, potentially reducing the need for multiple imaging sessions and radiation exposure in patients. By combining the morphological data provided by MRI with high soft tissue contrast and metabolic information from PET, it can be used as an accurate and effective diagnostic tool for delineating primary tumor margins, nodal staging, evaluating distant and local recurrences and treatment response in patients with gynecologic cancer. Beyond staging, functional and metabolic parameters derived from PET/MRI have the potential to be non-invasive biomarkers of prognosis.
Keywords: FDG, PET/MRI, gynecological malignancy, uterus, ovary, vagina, vulva
References
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 Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71: 209-49.
Umutlu L, Beyer T, Grueneisen JS, Rischpler C, Quick HH, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Whole-body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI for oncology: a consensus recommendation.Rofo. 2019; 191: 68-76. English.
Virarkar M, Vulasala SS, Calimano-Ramirez L, Singh A, Lall C, Bhosale P. Current update on PET/MRI in gynecological malignancies-a review of the literature.Curr Oncol. 2023; 30: 1077-105.
Nguyen NC, Beriwal S, Moon CH, D’Ardenne N, Mountz JM, Furlan A, et al. Diagnostic Value of FDG PET/MRI in Females with pelvic malignancy-a systematic review of the literature.Front Oncol. 2020; 10: 519440.
Sadowski EA, Pirasteh A, McMillan AB, Fowler KJ, Kusmirek JE. PET/MR imaging in gynecologic cancer: tips for differentiating normal gynecologic anatomy and benign pathology versus cancer.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022; 47: 3189-204.
Nie J, Zhang J, Gao J, Guo L, Zhou H, Hu Y, et al. Diagnostic role of 18F-FDG PET/MRI in patients with gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0175401. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0202314.
Virarkar M, Devine C, Bassett R Jr, Javadi S, Faria SC, Bhosale P. Update on diagnostic performance of PET/MRI in gynecological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Belg Soc Radiol. 2020; 104: 4.
Virarkar M, Ganeshan D, Devine C, Bassett R Jr, Kuchana V, Bhosale P. Diagnostic value of PET/CT versus PET/MRI in gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a meta-analysis.Clin Imaging. 2020; 60: 53-61.
GLOBOCAN 2020: Turkey World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer: Global Cancer Observatory; 2020. Accessed date: 2 May, 2021.
Sorosky JI. Endometrial cancer.Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 436-47.
Maheshwari E, Nougaret S, Stein EB, Rauch GM, Hwang KP, Stafford RJ, et al. Update on MRI in evaluation and treatment of endometrial cancer.Radiographics. 2022; 42: 2112-30.
Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Thomassin-Naggara I, Kido A, et al. Endometrial cancer MRI staging: updated guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 792-805.
Berek JS, Matias-Guiu X, Creutzberg C, Fotopoulou C, Gaffney D, Kehoe S, et al. Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women’s Cancer Committee. FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023; 162: 383-94.
Del Carmen MG, Boruta DM 2nd, Schorge JO. Recurrent endometrial cancer.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 54: 266-77.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Takahashi S, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI for staging of endometrial cancer: comparison with ¹F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82: 1672-6.
Yu Y, Zhang L, Sultana B, Wang B, Sun H. Diagnostic value of integratedF-FDG PET/MRI for staging of endometrial carcinoma: comparison with PET/CT. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22: 947.
Ironi G, Mapelli P, Bergamini A, Fallanca F, Candotti G, Gnasso C, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI in staging endometrial cancer: diagnostic and predictive value in a prospective cohort.Clin Nucl Med. 2022; 47: e221-e9.
Legge F, Restaino S, Leone L, Carone V, Ronsini C, Di Fiore GLM, et al. Clinical outcome of recurrent endometrial cancer: analysis of post-relapse survival by pattern of recurrence and secondary treatment.Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020; 30: 193-200.
Shih IL, Yen RF, Chen CA, Chen BB, Wei SY, Chang WC, et al. Standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient of endometrial cancer evaluated with integrated whole-body PET/MR: Correlation with pathological prognostic factors.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 42: 1723-32.
Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y. Diagnostic value ofF-FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with endometrial cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2020; 20: 75.
Bhatla N, Singhal S, Dhamija E, Mathur S, Natarajan J, Maheshwari A. Implications of the revised cervical cancer FIGO staging system.Indian J Med Res. 2021; 154: 273-83.
Mohan N, V J, Prahladan A, K R. Impact of incorporating Magnetic Resonance Imaging in FIGO Staging of Primary Carcinoma Cervix: Experience from a tertiary cancer center.Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2022; 18: 465-72.
Moore DH. Cervical cancer.Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 1152-61.
Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, Amendola MA, Brandt K, Schwartz LH, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183.J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 9329-37.
Xiao M, Yan B, Li Y, Lu J, Qiang J. Diagnostic performance of MR imaging in evaluating prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.Eur Radiol. 2020; 30: 1405-18.
Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 2005-18.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016.Eur Radiol. 2018; 28: 530-41.
Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, Di Legge A, Ameye L, Atstupenaite V, et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound - a European multicenter trial.Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 128: 449-53.
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 Sci. 2010; 101: 1471-9.
Nazir A, Matthews R, Chimpiri AR, Henretta M, Varughese J, Franceschi D. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography-magnetic resonance hybrid imaging: An emerging tool for staging of cancer of the uterine cervix.World J Nucl Med. 2020; 20: 150-5.
Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y. Diagnostic value ofF-FDG PET/MRI for revised 2018 FIGO staging in patients with cervical cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11: 202.
Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Cervical cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17: 64-84.
Manganaro L, Lakhman Y, Bharwani N, Gui B, Gigli S, Vinci V, et al. Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018.Eur Radiol. 2021; 31: 7802-16. Erratum in: Eur Radiol. 2022; 32: 738.
Sarabhai T, Schaarschmidt BM, Wetter A, Kirchner J, Aktas B, Forsting M, et al. Comparison ofF-FDG PET/MRI and MRI for pre-therapeutic tumor staging of patients with primary cancer of the uterine cervix. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45: 67-76.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Deguchi M, et al. Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI.Clin Imaging. 2014; 38: 464-9.
Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, McCormack M, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Ann Oncol. 2017; 28 (Suppl 4): iv72-iv83. Erratum in: Ann Oncol. 2018; 29(Suppl 4): iv262.
Steiner A, Narva S, Rinta-Kiikka I, Hietanen S, Hynninen J, Virtanen J. Diagnostic efficiency of whole-bodyF-FDG PET/MRI, MRI alone, and SUV and ADC values in staging of primary uterine cervical cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2021; 21: 16.
Kim SK, Choi HJ, Park SY, Lee HY, Seo SS, Yoo CW, et al. Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients.Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 2103-9.
Anner P, Mayerhöfer M, Wadsak W, Geleff S, Dudczak R, Haug A, et al. [F]FDG-PET/CT and MRI for initial pelvic lymph node staging in patients with cervical carcinoma: The potential usefulness of [F]FDG-PET/MRI. Oncol Lett. 2018; 15: 3951-6.
Adam JA, Loft A, Chargari C, Delgado Bolton RC, Kidd E, Schöder H, et al. EANM/SNMMI practice guideline for [F]FDG PET/CT external beam radiotherapy treatment planning in uterine cervical cancer v1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48: 1188-99.
Ahangari S, Hansen NL, Olin AB, Nøttrup TJ, Ryssel H, Berthelsen AK, et al. Toward PET/MRI as one-stop shop for radiotherapy planning in cervical cancer patients.Acta Oncol. 2021; 60: 1045-53.
Sanei Sistani S, Parooie F, Salarzaei M. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and MRI in predicting the tumor response in locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated by chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis.Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2021; 2021: 8874990.
Sarabhai T, Tschischka A, Stebner V, Nensa F, Wetter A, Kimmig R, et al. Simultaneous multiparametric PET/MRI for the assessment of therapeutic response to chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy of cervical cancer patients: Preliminary results.Clin Imaging. 2018; 49: 163-8.
Brandmaier P, Purz S, Bremicker K, Höckel M, Barthel H, Kluge R, et al. Simultaneous [18F]FDG-PET/MRI: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and standardized uptake value (SUV) in primary and recurrent cervical cancer.PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0141684.
Meyer HJ, Purz S, Sabri O, Surov A. Cervical cancer: associations between metabolic parameters and whole lesion histogram analysis derived from simultaneousF-FDG-PET/MRI. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018; 2018: 5063285.
Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, Aktas B, Kinner S, Forsting M, et al. Integrated PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42: 1814-24.
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143 (Suppl 2): 22-36. Erratum in: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024; 164: 1229-30.
Stojiljkovic M, Sobic Saranovic D, Odalovic S, Popovic M, Petrovic J, Rankovic N, et al. FDG PET-CT as an important diagnostic tool and prognostic marker in suspected recurrent cervical carcinoma after radiotherapy: comparison with MRI.Radiol Oncol. 2022; 56: 453-60.
Doubeni CA, Doubeni AR, Myers AE. Diagnosis and management of ovarian cancer.Am Fam Physician. 2016; 93: 937-44.
Berek JS, Renz M, Kehoe S, Kumar L, Friedlander M. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: 2021 update.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021; 155 (Suppl 1): 61-85.
Nougaret S, Addley HC, Colombo PE, Fujii S, Al Sharif SS, Tirumani SH, et al. Ovarian carcinomatosis: how the radiologist can help plan the surgical approach.Radiographics. 2012; 32: 1775-800; discussion 1800-3.
Virarkar M, Ganeshan D, Gulati AT, Palmquist S, Iyer R, Bhosale P. Diagnostic performance of PET/CT and PET/MR in the management of ovarian carcinoma-a literature review.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021; 46: 2323-49.
Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Beiderwellen K, Schulze-Hagen A, Heubner M, Kinner S, et al. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging in simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging for whole-body staging of women with pelvic malignancies.J Nucl Med. 2014; 55: 1930-5.
Queiroz MA, Kubik-Huch RA, Hauser N, Freiwald-Chilla B, von Schulthess G, Froehlich JM, et al. PET/MRI and PET/CT in advanced gynaecological tumours: initial experience and comparison.Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 2222-30.
Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y. Diagnostic value of [F]FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with ovarian cancer. EJNMMI Res. 2020; 10: 117.
Rajamohan N, Goenka AH. Beyond theAJR: FDG PET/MRI has the potential to improve the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis compared with standard-of-care imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022; 219: 845.
Furtado FS, Wu MZ, Esfahani SA, Ferrone CR, Blaszkowsky LS, Clark JW, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) versus the standard of care imaging in the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis.Ann Surg. 2023; 277: e893-e9.
Jónsdóttir B, Ripoll MA, Bergman A, Silins I, Poromaa IS, Ahlström H, et al. Validation ofF-FDG PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI for estimating the extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in ovarian and endometrial cancer -a pilot study. Cancer Imaging. 2021; 21: 34.
Chow L, Tsui BQ, Bahrami S, Masamed R, Memarzadeh S, Raman SS, et al. Gynecologic tumor board: a radiologist’s guide to vulvar and vaginal malignancies.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021; 46: 5669-86.
Gardner CS, Sunil J, Klopp AH, Devine CE, Sagebiel T, Viswanathan C, et al. Primary vaginal cancer: role of MRI in diagnosis, staging and treatment.Br J Radiol.2015; 88: 20150033.
Kataoka MY, Sala E, Baldwin P, Reinhold C, Farhadi A, Hudolin T, et al. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in staging of vulvar cancer: a retrospective multi-centre study.Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 117: 82-7.
Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Aktas B, Schaarschmidt BM, et al. Comparison ofF-FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45: 622-9.
