PURPOSE: PET/CT, PET+CT, and CT were compared concerning accuracies in TNM staging and malignancy detection in head and neck cancer. The impact of PET/CT compared to the other imaging modalities on therapy management was assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients with suspected head and neck primary cancer underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT. PET/CT and PET+CT were evaluated by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist; CT was evaluated by two radiologists, PET by two nuclear physicians. Histopathology served as the standard of reference. Differences between the staging modalities were tested for statistical significance by McNemar's test. RESULTS: Overall TNM-staging and T-staging with PET/CT were more accurate than PET+CT and CT alone (p < 0.05). PET/CT was marginally more accurate than CT alone in N-staging (p = 0.04); no statistically significant difference was found when compared to PET+CT for N-staging. PET/CT altered further treatment in 13 patients compared to CT only and in 7 patients compared to PET+CT. CONCLUSION: Combined PET/CT proved to be partly more accurate in assessing the overall TNM-stage than CT and PET+CT. These results were based on a higher accuracy concerning the T-stage, mainly in patients with metallic implants and marginally the N-stage. Therapy decisions have been influenced in a substantial number of patients. PET/CT might be considered as a first line diagnostic tool in patients with suspected primary head and neck cancer.
PURPOSE: PET/CT, PET+CT, and CT were compared concerning accuracies in TNM staging and malignancy detection in head and neck cancer. The impact of PET/CT compared to the other imaging modalities on therapy management was assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients with suspected head and neck primary cancer underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT. PET/CT and PET+CT were evaluated by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist; CT was evaluated by two radiologists, PET by two nuclear physicians. Histopathology served as the standard of reference. Differences between the staging modalities were tested for statistical significance by McNemar's test. RESULTS: Overall TNM-staging and T-staging with PET/CT were more accurate than PET+CT and CT alone (p < 0.05). PET/CT was marginally more accurate than CT alone in N-staging (p = 0.04); no statistically significant difference was found when compared to PET+CT for N-staging. PET/CT altered further treatment in 13 patients compared to CT only and in 7 patients compared to PET+CT. CONCLUSION: Combined PET/CT proved to be partly more accurate in assessing the overall TNM-stage than CT and PET+CT. These results were based on a higher accuracy concerning the T-stage, mainly in patients with metallic implants and marginally the N-stage. Therapy decisions have been influenced in a substantial number of patients. PET/CT might be considered as a first line diagnostic tool in patients with suspected primary head and neck cancer.
Authors: Patrick K Ha; Alia Hdeib; David Goldenberg; Heather Jacene; Pavni Patel; Wayne Koch; Joseph Califano; Charles W Cummings; Paul W Flint; Richard Wahl; Ralph P Tufano Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2006-01
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Diane L Carlson; Dennis H Kraus; Hilda E Stambuk; Mithat Gönen; Yusuf E Erdi; Henry W D Yeung; Andrew G Huvos; Jatin P Shah; Steven M Larson; Richard J Wong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Bal Sanghera; Wai Lup Wong; Martin A Lodge; Sharon Hain; David Stott; John Lowe; Catherine Lemon; Kate Goodchild; Michele Saunders Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Kenneth J Biehl; Feng-Ming Kong; Farrokh Dehdashti; Jian-Yue Jin; Sasa Mutic; Issam El Naqa; Barry A Siegel; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: Alexandra Lucs; Benjamin Saltman; Christine H Chung; Bettie M Steinberg; David L Schwartz Journal: Head Neck Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Val J Lowe; Fenghai Duan; Rathan M Subramaniam; JoRean D Sicks; Justin Romanoff; Twyla Bartel; Jian Q Michael Yu; Brian Nussenbaum; Jeremy Richmon; Charles D Arnold; David Cognetti; Brendan C Stack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Felix Pierre Kuhn; Florian Wiesinger; Gaspar Delso; Gustav von Schulthess Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: David L Schwartz; Jonathan Harris; Min Yao; David I Rosenthal; Adam Opanowski; Anthony Levering; K Kian Ang; Andy M Trotti; Adam S Garden; Christopher U Jones; Paul Harari; Robert Foote; John Holland; Qiang Zhang; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038