The predictive recurrence value of MTV-s as an 18F-FDG PET/CT index in patients with IIB-IVA cervical cancer

References

• Wang SM, Qiao YL, et al. Implementation of cervical cancer screening and prevention in China–challenges and reality. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(1):7–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer in women: burden and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Apr;26(4):444–457. Epub 2017 Feb 21. PMID: 28223433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, et al. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143(Suppl 2):22–36. PMID: 30306584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang L, Wang H, Jia X, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of young cervical cancer patients under 35 years old. Guang Zhou Yi Xue. 2012;33(18):2802－2805.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Liu X, Hu K, et al. The clinical value of PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Nucl Med Commun. 2018 Feb;39(2):97–102. PMID: 29189444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen GB, Abeler VM, Risberg B, et al. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and grading of the invasive tumor front are the main prognostic factors in early squamous cell cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Aug;74(2):245–251. PMID: 10419739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, et al. ESMO guidelines committee. Corrections to “Cervical cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up”. Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct;29(Suppl 4):iv262. Epub 2020 Jan 7. Erratum for: Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv72-iv83.PMID: 32169233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan P, Sahdev A. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in common gynaecological malignancies. Br J Radiol. 2017 Nov;90(1079):20170283. Epub 2017 Aug 22. PMID: 28830238; PMCID: PMC5963379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal College of Radiologists; Royal College of Physicians of London; Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow; Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; British Nuclear Medicine Society; Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. Evidence-based indications for the use of PET-CT in the United Kingdom 2016. Clin Radiol. 2016 Jul;71(7):e171–88. Epub 2016 May 17. PMID: 27207376.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer. 2015. V.2
   Google Scholar
• Raithatha A, Papadopoulou I, Stewart V, et al. Cervical cancer staging: a resident’s primer: women’s imaging. Radiographics. 2016 May-Jun;36(3):933–934. PMID: 27163600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James RM, Cruickshank ME, Siddiqui N. Guideline development group. Management of cervical cancer: summary of SIGN guidelines. BMJ. 2008 Jan 5;336(7634):41–43. PMID: 18174599; PMCID: PMC2174776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dag Z, Yilmaz B, Dogan AK, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of F-18 FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters of primary tumors and MRI findings in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Brachytherapy. 2019 Mar-Apr;18(2):154–162. Epub 2018 Dec 26. PMID: 30594422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ, et al. Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Mar;104(3):529–534. Epub 2006 Oct 16. PMID: 17049971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayne M, Hicks RJ, Everitt S, et al. Reproducibility of “intelligent” contouring of gross tumor volume in non-small-cell lung cancer on PET/CT images using a standardized visual method. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jul 15;77(4):1151–1157. PMID: 20610039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vali FS, Nagda S, Hall W, et al. Comparison of standardized uptake value-based positron emission tomography and computed tomography target volumes in esophageal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Nov 15;78(4):1057–1063. Epub 2010 Mar 2. PMID: 20199850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Hu J, Lu HJ, et al. Determination of an optimal standardized uptake value of fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography imaging to assess pathological volumes of cervical cancer: a prospective study. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e75159. PMID: 24265671; PMCID: PMC3827047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al. The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;110(8):1738–1744. PMID: 17786947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarker A, Im HJ, Cheon GJ, et al. Prognostic implications of the SUVmax of primary tumors and metastatic lymph node measured by 18F-FDG PET in patients with uterine cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;41(1):34–40. PMID: 26505856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Df P, King B, Xi Y, et al. Value of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity and quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters in predicting prognosis for patients with cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Apr;214(4):908–916. Epub 2020 Feb 18. PMID: 32069078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han S, Kim H, Kim YJ, et al. Prognostic value of volume-based metabolic parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT in uterine cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):1112–1121. Epub 2018 Sep 12. PMID: 30207790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong JH, Min KJ, Lee JK, et al. Prognostic value of the sum of metabolic tumor volume of primary tumor and lymph nodes using 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with cervical cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(9):e2992. PMID: 26945420; PMCID: PMC4782904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman T, Tsujikawa T, Yamamoto M, et al. Different prognostic implications of 18F-FDG PET between histological subtypes in patients with cervical cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(9):e3017. Erratum in: Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May 20;95(20):e0788. PMID: 26945427; PMCID: PMC4782911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung HH, Kang SY, Ha S, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in early stage uterine cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;27(2):e15. PMID: 26768781; PMCID: PMC4717220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrandina G, Gallotta V, Federico A, et al. Minimally invasive approaches in locally advanced cervical cancer patients undergoing radical surgery after chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Nov; 9. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33165720. DOI:10.1245/s10434-020-09302-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim YJ, Han S, Kim YS, et al. Prognostic value of post-treatment 1⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in uterine cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;30(5):e66. PMID: 31328452; PMCID: PMC6658597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (US). Cervical cancer (version 3.2019) [Internet]. Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2019 [ cited 2019 Jan 30]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ho KC, Fang YH, Chung HW, et al. A preliminary investigation into textural features of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET for overall survival prognosis in patients with bulky cervical cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jul 6;6;6(3):166–175. PMID: 27508103; PMCID: PMC4965521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang F, Thomas MA, Dehdashti F, et al. Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 May;40(5):716–727. Epub 2013 Jan 23. PMID: 23340594; PMCID: PMC3625466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Wang W, Hu K, et al. Stratification for Patients with Cervical Cancer in Stage IIIC1 of the 2018 FIGO Staging System. Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 15;10(1):362. PMID: 31941966; PMCID: PMC6962323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar