The issue of false positive lymph nodes on [18F] FDG-PET/CT for cervical carcinoma and consequences for treatment

Objective: Since 2018 imaging and histopathology are incorporated in the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system of cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose [18F] FDG-PET/CT ([18F] FDG-PET/CT) for lymph node involvement in patients with cervical cancer and to review the literature. Methods: First, PPV and NPV were calculated in a retrospective study including 98 patients with stage ≥IB1 cervical cancer that underwent a [18F] FDG-PET/CT before surgery. Second, the literature was reviewed on PPV and NPV of PET/CT in cervical cancer. Twenty-one studies were included and analyzed using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Results: In the retrospective study 63 patients (64%) were treated with a radical hysterectomy and complete pelvic lymph node dissection, and 35 patients (36%) underwent a lymph node debulking followed by chemoradiation. The PPV was 79% (inconclusive PET/CT interpreted as suspicious) or 89% (inconclusive PET/CT interpreted as non-suspicious) and the NPV was 81% or 80% respectively. The PPV in the subgroup of 63 patients treated with pelvic node dissection was 56% or 70% respectively. The NPV was 81% for both strategies. Literature results showed a positive correlation (R = 0.354) between the percentage of patients with positive nodes and the PPV of PET/CT. Conclusion: [18F] FDG-PET/CT overestimates the incidence of lymph node metastases, especially in early stage cervical cancer. This may cause a shift of the treatment regime from surgery to radiotherapy. Therefore, histopathological confirmation of [18F] FDG-PET/CT-positive nodes is essential to guide therapy decisions.

Cervical cancer; FIGO staging system; [18F] FDG-PET/CT; Positive predictive value; Lymph node metastases; Surgery; Radiotherapy

[1] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 394–424.

[2] Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2018; 143: 22–36.

[3] Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for car-cinoma of the cervix. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2009; 105: 107–108.

[4] Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2019; 145: 129–135.

[5] Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007; 188: 1577–1587.

[6] Jolly S, Uppal S, Bhatla N, Johnston C, Maturen K. Improving global outcomes in cervical cancer: the time has come for international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging to formally incorporate advanced imaging. Journal of Global Oncology. 2018; 4: 1–6.

[7] Fleming ND, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM, dos Reis R, Munsell MF, Eifel PJ, et al. Significance of lymph node ratio in defining risk category in nodepositive early stage cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015; 136: 48–53.

[8] Singh AK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, Siegel BA. FDG-PET lymph node staging and survival of patients with FIGO stage IIIb cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2003; 56: 489–493.

[9] Ruan J, Zhang Y, Ren H. Meta-analysis of PET/CT detect lymph nodes metastases of cervical cancer. Open Medicine. 2018; 13: 436–442.

[10] Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A comprehensive comparison of CT, MRI, positron emission tomography or positron emission Tomography/CT, and diffusion weighted imaging-MRI for detecting the lymph nodes metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis based on 67 studies. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2017; 82: 209–222.

[11] Derks M, Biewenga P, Van der Velden J, Kenter GG, Stalpers LJA, Buist MR. Results of radical surgery in women with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2016; 95: 166–172.

[12] Chung HH, Kang KW, Cho JY, Kim JW, Park N, Song Y, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in preoperative lymph node detection of uterine cervical cancer. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010; 203: 156.e1–156.e5.

[13] Crivellaro C, Signorelli M, Guerra L, De Ponti E, Buda A, Dolci C, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT can predict nodal metastases but not recurrence in early stage uterine cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 127: 131–135.

[14] Dong Y, Wang X, Wang Y, Liu Y, Zhang J, Qian W, et al. Validity of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for pretreatment evaluation of pa-tients with cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2014; 24: 1642–1647.

[15] Gee MS, Atri M, Bandos AI, Mannel RS, Gold MA, Lee SI. Identification of distant metastatic disease in uterine cervical and endometrial cancers with FDG PET/CT: analysis from the ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 multicenter trial. Radiology. 2018; 287: 176–184.

[16] Goyal BK, Singh H, Kapur K, Duggal BS, Jacob MJ. Value of PET-CT in avoiding multimodality therapy in operable cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2010; 20: 1041–1045.

[17] Kim S, Choi HJ, Park S, Lee H, Seo S, 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. European Journal of Cancer. 2009; 45: 2103–2109.

[18] Leblanc E, Gauthier H, Querleu D, Ferron G, Zerdoud S, Morice P, et al. Accuracy of 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the pretherapeutic detection of occult para-aortic node involvement in patients with a locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2011; 18: 2302–2309.

[19] Li K, Sun H, Guo Q. Combinative evaluation of primary tumor and lymph nodes in predicting pelvic lymphatic metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer: a multiparametric PET-CT study. European Journal of Radiology. 2019; 113: 153–157.

[20] Lin WC, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY. Useful-ness of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis in advanced cervi-cal cancer with negative computed tomography findings. Gynecologic Oncology. 2003; 89: 73–76.

[21] Lv K, Guo H, Lu Y, Wu Z, Zhang K, Han J. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic lymph-node metastases in patients with early-stage uterine cervical cancer: comparison with MRI findings. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2014; 35: 1204–1211.

[22] Ma SY, See LC, Lai CH, Chou HH, Tsai CS, Ng KK, et al. Delayed (18) F-FDG PET for detection of paraaortic lymph node metas-tases in cervical cancer patients. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2003; 44: 1775–1783.

[23] Margulies A, Peres A, Barranger E, Perreti I, Brouland J, Toubet E, et al. Selection of patients with advanced-stage cervical cancer for para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the era of PET/CT. Anticancer Research. 2013; 33: 283–286.

[24] Nogami Y, Banno K, Irie H, Iida M, Kisu I, Masugi Y, et al. The efficacy of preoperative positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) for detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and endometrial cancer: clinical and pathological factors influencing it. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015; 45: 26–34.

[25] Papadia A, Gasparri ML, Genoud S, Bernd K, Mueller MD. The combination of preoperative PET/CT and sentinel lymph node biopsy in the surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2017; 143: 2275–2281.

[26] Perez-Medina T, Pereira A, Mucientes J, García-Espantaleón M, Jiménez JS, Calles L, et al. Prospective evaluation of 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography for the discrimi-nation of paraaortic nodal spread in patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2013; 23: 170–175.

[27] Sarabhai T, Schaarschmidt BM, Wetter A, Kirchner J, Aktas B, Forsting M, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI for pretherapeutic tumor staging of patients with primary cancer of the uterine cervix. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2018; 45: 67–76.

[28] Signorelli M, Fruscio R, Guerra L, Crivellaro C, Betti M, Chiappa V, et al. Preoperative staging of cervical cancer: is FDG PET-CT really effective in patients with ib1 stage? International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2011; 123: 236–240.

[29] Wright JD, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, Mutch DG, Huettner PC, Rader JS, et al. Preoperative lymph node staging of early-stage cervical carcinoma by [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2005; 104: 2484–2491.

[30] Xu X, Li Z, Qiu X, Wei Z. Diagnosis performance of positron emission tomography-computed tomography among cervical cancer patients. Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology. 2016; 24: 531–536.

[31] Yang Z, Xu W, Ma Y, Liu K, Li Y, Wang D. (18) F-FDG PET/CT can correct the clinical stages and predict pathological parameters before operation in cervical cancer. European Journal of Radiology. 2016; 85: 877–884.

[32] Ramirez PT, Jhingran A, Macapinlac HA, Euscher ED, Munsell, MF, Coleman RL,et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancer. 2011; 117: 1928–1934.

[33] Elit LM, Fyles AW, Gu C, Pond GR, D’Souza D, Samant R, et al. Effect of positron emission tomography imaging in women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open. 2018; 1: e182081.

[34] Nama V, Angelopoulos G, Twigg J, Murdoch JB, Bailey J, Lawrie TA. Type II or type III radical hysterectomy compared to chemora-diotherapy as a primary intervention for stage IB2 cervical cancer. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;10: Cd011478.

[35] Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage IB–IIA cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997; 350: 535–540.

[36] Vordermark D. Radiotherapy of Cervical Cancer. Oncology Re-search and Treatment. 2016; 39: 516–520.

[37] Marnitz-Schulze S, Tsunoda A, Martus P, Vieira M, Affonso R, Nunes J, et al. 24 uterus-11 study: a randomized clinical trial on surgical staging versus ctstaging prior to primary chemoradiation in patients with FIGO2009 stages IIB–IVA cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2019; 30: 1855–1861.

[38] Zou W, Han Y, Zhang Y, Hu C, Feng Y, Zhang H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus concurrent chemoradio-therapy in stage IB2–IIB cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14: e0225264.

[39] Yang S, Gao Y, Sun J, Xia B, Liu T, Zhang H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery as an alternative treatment to concurrent chemoradiotherapy for young premenopausal patients with FIGO stage IIB squamous cervical carcinoma. Tumour Biology. 2015; 36: 4349–4356.

[40] Hazewinkel MH, Sprangers MAG, van der Velden J, van der Vaart CH, Stalpers LJA, Burger MPM, et al. Long-term cervical cancer survivors suffer from pelvic floor symptoms: a cross-sectional matched cohort study. Gynecologic Oncology. 2010; 117: 281–286.

[41] Derks M, van Lonkhuijzen LRCW, Bakker RM, Stiggelbout AM, de Kroon CD, Westerveld H, et al. Long-term morbidity and quality of life in cervical cancer survivors: a multicenter comparison between surgery and radiotherapy as primary treatment. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2017; 27: 350–356.