INTRODUCTION: This prospective study was designed to elucidate the advantages and pitfalls of (18)F-FDG PET in detecting locally residual/recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in comparison with MRI. METHODS: We recruited NPC patients from two ongoing prospective trials. One is being performed to evaluate suspected local recurrence (group A) and the other to assess local treatment response 3 months after therapy (group B). Both groups received (18)F-FDG PET and head and neck MRI. The gold standard was histopathology or clinical/imaging follow-up. An optimal cut-off standardised uptake value (SUV) was retrospectively determined. RESULTS: From January 2002 to August 2004, 146 patients were eligible. Thirty-four were from group A and 112 from group B. In all, 26 had locally recurrent/residual tumours. Differences in detection rate between (18)F-FDG PET and MRI were not statistically significant in either group. However, (18)F-FDG PET showed significantly higher specificity than MRI in detecting residual tumours among patients with initial T4 disease (p=0.04). In contrast, the specificity of (18)F-FDG PET for patients with an initial T1-2 tumour treated with intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) was significantly lower than that for patients not treated by ICBT (72.2% vs 98.1%, p=0.003). At an SUV cut-off of 4.2, PET showed an equal and a higher accuracy compared with MRI in groups A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET is superior to MRI in identifying locally residual NPC among patients with initial T4 disease but demonstrates limitations in assessing treatment response in patients with initial T1-2 disease after ICBT. A cut-off SUV is a useful index for aiding in the visual detection of locally residual/recurrent NPC.
INTRODUCTION: This prospective study was designed to elucidate the advantages and pitfalls of (18)F-FDG PET in detecting locally residual/recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in comparison with MRI. METHODS: We recruited NPCpatients from two ongoing prospective trials. One is being performed to evaluate suspected local recurrence (group A) and the other to assess local treatment response 3 months after therapy (group B). Both groups received (18)F-FDG PET and head and neck MRI. The gold standard was histopathology or clinical/imaging follow-up. An optimal cut-off standardised uptake value (SUV) was retrospectively determined. RESULTS: From January 2002 to August 2004, 146 patients were eligible. Thirty-four were from group A and 112 from group B. In all, 26 had locally recurrent/residual tumours. Differences in detection rate between (18)F-FDG PET and MRI were not statistically significant in either group. However, (18)F-FDG PET showed significantly higher specificity than MRI in detecting residual tumours among patients with initial T4 disease (p=0.04). In contrast, the specificity of (18)F-FDG PET for patients with an initial T1-2 tumour treated with intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) was significantly lower than that for patients not treated by ICBT (72.2% vs 98.1%, p=0.003). At an SUV cut-off of 4.2, PET showed an equal and a higher accuracy compared with MRI in groups A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET is superior to MRI in identifying locally residual NPC among patients with initial T4 disease but demonstrates limitations in assessing treatment response in patients with initial T1-2 disease after ICBT. A cut-off SUV is a useful index for aiding in the visual detection of locally residual/recurrent NPC.
Authors: R J Wong; D T Lin; H Schöder; S G Patel; M Gonen; S Wolden; D G Pfister; J P Shah; S M Larson; D H Kraus Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael K M Kam; Peter M L Teo; Ricky M C Chau; K Y Cheung; Peter H K Choi; W H Kwan; S F Leung; Benny Zee; Anthony T C Chan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J T Chang; L C See; C T Liao; S H Ng; C H Wang; I H Chen; N M Tsang; C K Tseng; S G Tang; J H Hong Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stephen R Bowen; Richard J Chappell; Søren M Bentzen; Michael A Deveau; Lisa J Forrest; Robert Jeraj Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Pietro A Bonaffini; Onofrio A Catalano; Alexander R Guimaraes; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Carlos Suárez; Juan P Rodrigo; Alessandra Rinaldo; Johannes A Langendijk; Ashok R Shaha; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2010-09-24 Impact factor: 2.503