OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical value of positron emission tomography (PET) using fludeoxyglucose F 18, computed tomography (CT), color-coded duplex sonography (CCDS), and panendoscopy in the detection and staging of head and neck cancer. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized controlled study. SETTING: Medical school. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 50 patients with suspected primary or recurrent head and neck cancer. INTERVENTION: Biopsy, tumor surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Information of diagnostic procedures compared with histopathologic features. RESULTS: Both PET and panendoscopy had a sensitivity of 95% and 100% for detection of primary tumor or recurrent carcinomas, respectively. Specificity for PET and panendoscopy was 92% and 85% in primary tumors and 100% and 80% in recurrent carcinoma, respectively. Sensitivity of CCDS and CT was 74% and 68% in primary tumors and 67% and 63% in recurrent carcinomas, respectively. Specificity was 75% and 69% in primary tumors and 100% and 80% in recurrent neoplasms. When assessing neck nodes, all imaging procedures exhibited identical sensitivity (84%). Specificity was 90%, 96%, and 88% in PET, CT, and CCDS, respectively. In recurrent lymph node metastases, sensitivity was 100%, 67%, and 67% and specificity was 87%, 91%, and 87% for PET, CT, and CCDS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography was the most reliable imaging procedure in the detection of primary tumor and recurrent carcinomas localized in the head and neck region. Owing to its limited anatomical depiction, it cannot as yet replace other diagnostic procedures in preoperative planning but does contribute valuable complementary diagnostic information. Computed tomograpy may have difficulties in identifying recurrent carcinomas. For routine diagnosis of nodal spread in the neck, CCDS is recommended. Panendoscopy is a valuable diagnostic procedure that can provide key information in cases of superficial mucosal tumor involvement. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:1457-1461
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical value of positron emission tomography (PET) using fludeoxyglucose F 18, computed tomography (CT), color-coded duplex sonography (CCDS), and panendoscopy in the detection and staging of head and neck cancer. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized controlled study. SETTING: Medical school. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 50 patients with suspected primary or recurrent head and neck cancer. INTERVENTION: Biopsy, tumor surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Information of diagnostic procedures compared with histopathologic features. RESULTS: Both PET and panendoscopy had a sensitivity of 95% and 100% for detection of primary tumor or recurrent carcinomas, respectively. Specificity for PET and panendoscopy was 92% and 85% in primary tumors and 100% and 80% in recurrent carcinoma, respectively. Sensitivity of CCDS and CT was 74% and 68% in primary tumors and 67% and 63% in recurrent carcinomas, respectively. Specificity was 75% and 69% in primary tumors and 100% and 80% in recurrent neoplasms. When assessing neck nodes, all imaging procedures exhibited identical sensitivity (84%). Specificity was 90%, 96%, and 88% in PET, CT, and CCDS, respectively. In recurrent lymph node metastases, sensitivity was 100%, 67%, and 67% and specificity was 87%, 91%, and 87% for PET, CT, and CCDS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography was the most reliable imaging procedure in the detection of primary tumor and recurrent carcinomas localized in the head and neck region. Owing to its limited anatomical depiction, it cannot as yet replace other diagnostic procedures in preoperative planning but does contribute valuable complementary diagnostic information. Computed tomograpy may have difficulties in identifying recurrent carcinomas. For routine diagnosis of nodal spread in the neck, CCDS is recommended. Panendoscopy is a valuable diagnostic procedure that can provide key information in cases of superficial mucosal tumor involvement. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:1457-1461
Authors: Christian Buchbender; Jon Treffert; Götz Lehnerdt; Stefan Mattheis; Bernhard Geiger; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gordon H Sun; Oluseyi Aliu; Nicholas M Moloci; Joshua K Mondschein; James F Burke; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Antoine Digonnet; Marc Hamoir; Guy Andry; Missak Haigentz; Robert P Takes; Carl E Silver; Dana M Hartl; Primož Strojan; Alessandra Rinaldo; Remco de Bree; Andreas Dietz; Vincent Grégoire; Vinidh Paleri; Johannes A Langendijk; Vincent Vander Poorten; Michael L Hinni; Juan P Rodrigo; Carlos Suárez; William M Mendenhall; Jochen A Werner; Eric M Genden; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Eric M Genden; Alfio Ferlito; Carl E Silver; Robert P Takes; Carlos Suárez; Randall P Owen; Missak Haigentz; Sandro J Stoeckli; Ashok R Shaha; Alexander D Rapidis; Juan Pablo Rodrigo; Alessandra Rinaldo Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2010-02-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Coen R N Rasch; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Isabelle Fitton; Joop C Duppen; Peter J C M Nowak; Frank A Pameijer; Avraham Eisbruch; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Frank Paulsen; Marcel van Herk Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Hubert Vermeersch; David Loose; Hamphrey Ham; Andreas Otte; Christophe Van de Wiele Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 9.236