Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of PET/MR Versus CECT in Determining Resectability in Ovarian Cancer

<b>Objective:</b> This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/MR imaging and contrast-enhanced CT for detecting metastatic disease in patients undergoing surgical resection, using pathology as the reference standard. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Nineteen patients with suspected metastatic involvement (including four who received neoadjuvant therapy before surgery) underwent both FDG PET/MR and contrast-enhanced CT scans. Imaging was reviewed for metastases at defined sites (e.g., perihepatic region, hepatic parenchyma, mesentery, bowel serosa, colon surface, and nodal basins). Findings on each modality were compared to surgical pathology results per site. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for PET/MR and CT, with pathology as the reference standard. <b>Results:</b> Overall, PET/MR achieved approximately 55.5% sensitivity, 89.5% specificity, 82.5% accuracy, 57.6% positive predictive value (PPV), and 88.6% negative predictive value (NPV). In contrast, CT demonstrated 75.0% sensitivity, 72.3% specificity, 72.9% accuracy, 42% PPV, and 91.5% NPV. No significant correlations were observed between semi-quantitative PET/MR measures, such as SUV or MR ADC values, and patient survival outcomes; therefore, these metrics were excluded from further analysis. Notably, PET/MR imaging findings changed clinical management in 3/6 chemotherapy patients. PET/MR demonstrated greater sensitivity in detecting nodal metastases, 75% compared to CT (25%), and identified small bowel serosal lesions in 1 of 1 case (100% sensitivity) versus none with CT. CT showed slightly higher specificity (81%) for colon serosal involvement than PET/MR (75%). <b>Conclusions:</b> CT demonstrates higher sensitivity, whereas PET/MR offers greater specificity and negative predictive value. When used together, the two modalities may provide a more reliable and comprehensive assessment of metastatic disease.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2025-08-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17162612
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of PET/MR Versus CECT in Determining Resectability in Ovarian Cancer

Sanaz Javadi, Taher Daoud, Mayur Virarkar, Jia Sun et al.
2 citations
Cancers
Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
3.40
article

Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of PET/MR Versus CECT in Determining Resectability in Ovarian Cancer

Sanaz Javadi, Taher Daoud, Mayur Virarkar, Jia Sun, Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan, R. Rajagopalan Iyer, Priya Bhosale, Aatiqah Aziz
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Objective:</b> This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/MR imaging and contrast-enhanced CT for detecting metastatic disease in patients undergoing surgical resection, using pathology as the reference standard. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Nineteen patients with suspected metastatic involvement (including four who received neoadjuvant therapy before surgery) underwent both FDG PET/MR and contrast-enhanced CT scans. Imaging was reviewed for metastases at defined sites (e.g., perihepatic region, hepatic parenchyma, mesentery, bowel serosa, colon surface, and nodal basins). Findings on each modality were compared to surgical pathology results per site. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for PET/MR and CT, with pathology as the reference standard. <b>Results:</b> Overall, PET/MR achieved approximately 55.5% sensitivity, 89.5% specificity, 82.5% accuracy, 57.6% positive predictive value (PPV), and 88.6% negative predictive value (NPV). In contrast, CT demonstrated 75.0% sensitivity, 72.3% specificity, 72.9% accuracy, 42% PPV, and 91.5% NPV. No significant correlations were observed between semi-quantitative PET/MR measures, such as SUV or MR ADC values, and patient survival outcomes; therefore, these metrics were excluded from further analysis. Notably, PET/MR imaging findings changed clinical management in 3/6 chemotherapy patients. PET/MR demonstrated greater sensitivity in detecting nodal metastases, 75% compared to CT (25%), and identified small bowel serosal lesions in 1 of 1 case (100% sensitivity) versus none with CT. CT showed slightly higher specificity (81%) for colon serosal involvement than PET/MR (75%). <b>Conclusions:</b> CT demonstrates higher sensitivity, whereas PET/MR offers greater specificity and negative predictive value. When used together, the two modalities may provide a more reliable and comprehensive assessment of metastatic disease.

CancersVol. 17(16)
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), University of Florida (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
3.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.