OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) in the treatment of patients suspected of having head and neck cancer recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective and consecutive inclusion of 44 patients presenting with clinical symptoms suggestive of head and neck tumor recurrence. METHODS: FDG-PET was compared with combined computed tomography (CT) plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures for the differential diagnosis between tumor recurrence and benign post-therapeutic changes. For FDG-PET, the potential additional value of semiquantitative indexes was studied. The impact on patient treatment (i.e., their ability to accurately select patients for panendoscopic exploration) was analyzed retrospectively for both CT+MRI and PET workups. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy was found higher for PET than for combined CT+MRI: sensitivity ranged from 96% to 73%, specificity from 61% to 50%, and accuracy from 81% to 64% for PET and CT+MRI, respectively. The accuracy of FDG-PET was the highest (94%) in patients included more than 12 weeks after the end of therapy. In 15 discordant cases, PET was correct in 11 and CT+MRI in 4. Patient selection for panendoscopic exploration and biopsy was correct in 79% and 50% of patients with FDG-PET and CT+MRI, respectively. Quantification of FDG uptake had no additional value over visual analysis alone, although we found that a SUVlbm (standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass) threshold of 3 could be helpful in patients scanned less than 12 weeks after the end of therapy. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET has a major additional diagnostic value to CT+MRI for the evaluation of the symptomatic patient suspected of having head and neck cancer recurrence. PET could have a direct impact on management by correctly selecting patients in whom a panendoscopic exploration with biopsy is indicated.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) in the treatment of patients suspected of having head and neck cancer recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective and consecutive inclusion of 44 patients presenting with clinical symptoms suggestive of head and neck tumor recurrence. METHODS:FDG-PET was compared with combined computed tomography (CT) plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures for the differential diagnosis between tumor recurrence and benign post-therapeutic changes. For FDG-PET, the potential additional value of semiquantitative indexes was studied. The impact on patient treatment (i.e., their ability to accurately select patients for panendoscopic exploration) was analyzed retrospectively for both CT+MRI and PET workups. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy was found higher for PET than for combined CT+MRI: sensitivity ranged from 96% to 73%, specificity from 61% to 50%, and accuracy from 81% to 64% for PET and CT+MRI, respectively. The accuracy of FDG-PET was the highest (94%) in patients included more than 12 weeks after the end of therapy. In 15 discordant cases, PET was correct in 11 and CT+MRI in 4. Patient selection for panendoscopic exploration and biopsy was correct in 79% and 50% of patients with FDG-PET and CT+MRI, respectively. Quantification of FDG uptake had no additional value over visual analysis alone, although we found that a SUVlbm (standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass) threshold of 3 could be helpful in patients scanned less than 12 weeks after the end of therapy. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET has a major additional diagnostic value to CT+MRI for the evaluation of the symptomatic patient suspected of having head and neck cancer recurrence. PET could have a direct impact on management by correctly selecting patients in whom a panendoscopic exploration with biopsy is indicated.
Authors: S F Nemec; C R Krestan; I M Noebauer-Huhmann; M Formanek; J Frühwald; P Peloschek; F Kainberger; C Czerny Journal: Radiologe Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Jon Cacicedo; Arturo Navarro; Olga Del Hoyo; Alfonso Gomez-Iturriaga; Filippo Alongi; Jose A Medina; Olgun Elicin; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile; Pedro Bilbao; Francisco Casquero; Berardino de Bari; Alan Dal Pra Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Bhupesh Parashar; A Gabriella Wernicke; Samuel Rice; Joseph Osborne; Prabhsimranjot Singh; Dattatreyudu Nori; Shankar Vallabhajosula; Stanley Goldsmith; K S Clifford Chao Journal: Discov Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.970