Gynaecology Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Gynaecology, including details on pap smears, laparoscopy, ultrasound, hysteroscopy.

Comparison of 18F-FDG PET and MRI in Assessment of Uterine Smooth Muscle Tumors.

Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Sawamura Y, Shinagawa A, Tsujikawa T, Okazawa H, Tsuchida T, Imamura Y, Suganuma N, Kotsuji F

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui Prefecture, Japan; 2Biomedical Imaging Research Center, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui Prefecture, Japan; 3Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui Prefecture, Japan; 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui Prefecture, Japan; and 5Department of International Social and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui Prefecture, Japan.

The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine whether combined MRI and (18)F-FDG PET is more accurate than MRI in assessing nonbenign uterine smooth muscle tumors (USMTs). METHODS: Seventy patients (mean age, 49 +/- 10 y; range, 28-77 y) suspected of having nonbenign USMTs underwent both MRI and (18)F-FDG PET before surgery. Results were evaluated using receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analyses and the Cochran Q test. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve for MRI with (18)F-FDG PET was significantly higher than that for MRI (0.97 vs. 0.89, P < 0.05). Although multiple comparisons using the Cochran Q test were not significant, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for MRI with (18)F-FDG PET with probable nonbenign USMT cases considered to be positive were higher than those for MRI (93.3% vs. 73.3%; 92.7% vs. 85.5%; and 92.9% vs. 82.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: MRI with (18)F-FDG PET is useful in assessing nonbenign USMTs, as compared with MRI.

Published 1 May 2008 in J Nucl Med, 49(5): 708-712.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

© 2005-2008 Gynaecology Research Today. All Rights Reserved.