UNLABELLED: (18)F-FDG PET has a high accuracy in staging head and neck cancer, but its role in patients with clinically and radiographically negative necks (N0) is less clear. In particular, the value of combined PET/CT has not been determined in this group of patients. METHODS: In a prospective study, 31 patients with oral cancer and no evidence of lymph node metastases by clinical examination or CT/MRI underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before elective neck dissection. PET/CT findings were recorded by neck side (left or right) and lymph node level. PET/CT findings were compared with histopathology of dissected nodes, which was the standard of reference. RESULTS: Elective neck dissections (26 unilateral, 5 bilateral; a total of 36 neck sides), involving 142 nodal levels, were performed. Only 13 of 765 dissected lymph nodes harbored metastases. Histopathology revealed nodal metastases in 9 of 36 neck sides and 9 of 142 nodal levels. PET was TP in 6 nodal levels (6 neck sides), false-negative in 3 levels (3 neck sides), true-negative in 127 levels (23 neck sides), and false-positive in 6 levels (4 neck sides). The 3 false-negative findings occurred in metastases smaller than 3 mm or because of inability to distinguish between primary tumor and adjacent metastasis. TP and false-positive nodes exhibited similar standardized uptakes (4.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 4.2 +/- 1.0; P = not significant). Sensitivity and specificity were 67% and 85% on the basis of neck sides and 67% and 95% on the basis of number of nodal levels, respectively. If a decision regarding the need for neck dissection had been based solely on PET/CT, 3 false-negative necks would have been undertreated, and 4 false-positive necks would have been overtreated. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET/CT can identify lymph node metastases in a segment of patients with oral cancer and N0 neck. A negative test can exclude metastatic deposits with high specificity. Despite reasonably high overall accuracy, however, the clinical application of PET/CT in the N0 neck may be limited by the combination of limited sensitivity for small metastatic deposits and a relatively high number of false-positive findings. The surgical management of the N0 neck should therefore not be based on PET/CT findings alone.
UNLABELLED: (18)F-FDG PET has a high accuracy in staging head and neck cancer, but its role in patients with clinically and radiographically negative necks (N0) is less clear. In particular, the value of combined PET/CT has not been determined in this group of patients. METHODS: In a prospective study, 31 patients with oral cancer and no evidence of lymph node metastases by clinical examination or CT/MRI underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before elective neck dissection. PET/CT findings were recorded by neck side (left or right) and lymph node level. PET/CT findings were compared with histopathology of dissected nodes, which was the standard of reference. RESULTS: Elective neck dissections (26 unilateral, 5 bilateral; a total of 36 neck sides), involving 142 nodal levels, were performed. Only 13 of 765 dissected lymph nodes harbored metastases. Histopathology revealed nodal metastases in 9 of 36 neck sides and 9 of 142 nodal levels. PET was TP in 6 nodal levels (6 neck sides), false-negative in 3 levels (3 neck sides), true-negative in 127 levels (23 neck sides), and false-positive in 6 levels (4 neck sides). The 3 false-negative findings occurred in metastases smaller than 3 mm or because of inability to distinguish between primary tumor and adjacent metastasis. TP and false-positive nodes exhibited similar standardized uptakes (4.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 4.2 +/- 1.0; P = not significant). Sensitivity and specificity were 67% and 85% on the basis of neck sides and 67% and 95% on the basis of number of nodal levels, respectively. If a decision regarding the need for neck dissection had been based solely on PET/CT, 3 false-negative necks would have been undertreated, and 4 false-positive necks would have been overtreated. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET/CT can identify lymph node metastases in a segment of patients with oral cancer and N0 neck. A negative test can exclude metastatic deposits with high specificity. Despite reasonably high overall accuracy, however, the clinical application of PET/CT in the N0 neck may be limited by the combination of limited sensitivity for small metastatic deposits and a relatively high number of false-positive findings. The surgical management of the N0 neck should therefore not be based on PET/CT findings alone.
Authors: Enver Ozer; Barış Naiboğlu; Ryan Meacham; Cherie Ryoo; Amit Agrawal; David E Schuller Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-01-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: P T de Souza Figueiredo; A F Leite; F R Barra; R F Dos Anjos; A C Freitas; L A Nascimento; N S Melo; E N S Guerra Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Daniel Schmid; Klaus Strobel; Jan D Soyka; Niklaus G Schaefer; Stephan K Haerle; Gerhard Huber; Gabriele Studer; Burkhardt Seifert; Thomas F Hany Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Christopher Luczak; Isabel Wanke; Markus Fischer; Thomas Egelhof; Thomas Beyer; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Sandra Rosenbaum; Gerald Antoch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-08-24 Impact factor: 9.236