Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study reveals high diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for recurrent cervical cancer, indicating strong predictive reliability shaped by clinical context.
Background/Objectives: Cervical cancer recurrence after definitive treatment remains a major clinical challenge, and early detection may improve patient outcomes. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18 FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for detecting recurrent cervical cancer according to clinical context. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1727 post-treatment PET/CT examinations obtained from 659 patients who achieved a complete response after definitive treatment between 2005 and 2024. After excluding 15 examinations that detected second primary malignancies, the recurrence-specific analysis included 1712 examinations from 654 patients. PET/CT findings were classified as true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative based on histopathology or serial imaging follow-up. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for within-patient clustering. Subgroup analyses were performed according to histology, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage, interval from treatment completion to PET/CT, and clinical context. Results: Of the 1712 examinations, 136 (7.9%) were true positive, 1525 (89.1%) were true negative, 43 (2.5%) were false positive, and 8 (0.5%) were false negative. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 94.4%, 97.3%, 76.0%, 99.5%, and 97.0%, respectively. Diagnostic performance was similar across histologic subtypes and FIGO stages. In routine follow-up settings without clinical suspicion of recurrence, PET/CT showed a high NPV (100.0%), whereas examinations performed for clinically suspected recurrence showed a high PPV (96.5%). Conclusions: These findings suggest that the diagnostic interpretation and clinical utility of post-treatment PET/CT may vary according to the clinical setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: