Table 1.
Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET in the detection of nodal metastases in primary endometrial carcinoma
| Study | Technique | Patients/ nodes | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horowitz et al.[33] | PET | Patients: 19 | 67 | 94 | In patients with moderate or high-grade histology | |
| Nodes | 60 | 98 | ||||
| Suzuki et al.[34] | PET | Patients: 30 | Did not identify any metastatic node that was < 10 mm in diameter | |||
| Kitajima et al.[35] | PET/CT | Patients: 40 | 50 | 86.7 | ||
| Nodes: 1484 | 53 | 99.6 | ||||
| Nayot et al.[36] | PET/CT | Patients: 12 | ||||
| Nodes | 53 | 99 | ||||
| Park et al.[74] | PET/CT | Patients: 53 | No difference when compared with MRI (P = 0.25 (sensitivity)) | |||
| Nodal site | 69.2 | 90 | ||||
| Picchio et al.[37] | PET/CT | Patients: 32 | 57 | 100 | 86 | In patients with high-grade histology; 5 cases of additionally detected extranodal metastatic disease |
| Nodes: not available | ||||||
| Signorelli et al.[38] | PET/CT | Patients: 37 | 77.8 | 100 | 93.3 | 11 patients with grade 2/deep invasion and 26 patients with grade 3 histology |
| Nodal site | 66.7 | 99.4 | 97.2 |