PURPOSE: To correlate positron emission tomography (PET) standard uptake value (SUV) with pathologic specimen size in patients with head-and-neck cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients with Stage II-IVB head-and-neck cancer with 27 tumors who underwent PET and computed tomography (CT) imaging of the head and neck followed by surgical resection were selected for this study. Various SUV thresholds were examined, including the software default (SUV(def)), narrowing the window by 1 standard deviation (SD) of the maximum (SUV-1SD), and SUV cutoff values of 2.5 or greater (SUV2.5) and 40% or greater maximum (SUV40). Volumetric pathologic data were available for 12 patients. Tumor volumes based on pathologic examination (gold standard), CT, SUV(def), SUV-1SD, SUV2.5, and SUV40 were analyzed. RESULTS: PET identified five tumors not seen on CT. The sensitivity of PET for identifying primary tumors was 94% (17 of 18). The Sensitivity of PET for staging the neck was 90% (9 of 10), whereas the specificity was 78% (7 of 9). The SUV2.5 method was most likely to overestimate tumor volume, whereas SUV(def) and SUV-1SD were most likely to underestimate tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: The PET scan provides more accurate staging of primary tumors and nodal metastases for patients with advanced head-and-neck cancer than CT alone. Compared with the gold standard, significant variability exists in volumes obtained by using various SUV thresholds. A combination of clinical, CT, and PET data should continue to be used for optimal treatment planning. The SUV40 method appears to offer the best compromise between accuracy and reducing the risk of underestimating tumor extent.
PURPOSE: To correlate positron emission tomography (PET) standard uptake value (SUV) with pathologic specimen size in patients with head-and-neck cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients with Stage II-IVB head-and-neck cancer with 27 tumors who underwent PET and computed tomography (CT) imaging of the head and neck followed by surgical resection were selected for this study. Various SUV thresholds were examined, including the software default (SUV(def)), narrowing the window by 1 standard deviation (SD) of the maximum (SUV-1SD), and SUV cutoff values of 2.5 or greater (SUV2.5) and 40% or greater maximum (SUV40). Volumetric pathologic data were available for 12 patients. Tumor volumes based on pathologic examination (gold standard), CT, SUV(def), SUV-1SD, SUV2.5, and SUV40 were analyzed. RESULTS: PET identified five tumors not seen on CT. The sensitivity of PET for identifying primary tumors was 94% (17 of 18). The Sensitivity of PET for staging the neck was 90% (9 of 10), whereas the specificity was 78% (7 of 9). The SUV2.5 method was most likely to overestimate tumor volume, whereas SUV(def) and SUV-1SD were most likely to underestimate tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: The PET scan provides more accurate staging of primary tumors and nodal metastases for patients with advanced head-and-neck cancer than CT alone. Compared with the gold standard, significant variability exists in volumes obtained by using various SUV thresholds. A combination of clinical, CT, and PET data should continue to be used for optimal treatment planning. The SUV40 method appears to offer the best compromise between accuracy and reducing the risk of underestimating tumor extent.
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: Jacobus F A Jansen; Heiko Schöder; Nancy Y Lee; Hilda E Stambuk; Ya Wang; Matthew G Fury; Snehal G Patel; David G Pfister; Jatin P Shah; Jason A Koutcher; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James D Murphy; Karen M Chisholm; Megan E Daly; Ellen A Wiegner; Daniel Truong; Andrei Iagaru; Peter G Maxim; Billy W Loo; Edward E Graves; Michael J Kaplan; Christina Kong; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Gianpiero Manca; Eleonora Vanzi; Domenico Rubello; Francesco Giammarile; Gaia Grassetto; Ka Kit Wong; Alan C Perkins; Patrick M Colletti; Duccio Volterrani Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Charles W Kanaly; Ankit I Mehta; Dale Ding; Jenny K Hoang; Peter G Kranz; James E Herndon; April Coan; Ian Crocker; Anthony F Waller; Allan H Friedman; David A Reardon; John H Sampson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Luis Alberto Perez-Romasanta; Maria Bellon-Guardia; Javier Torres-Donaire; Eva Lozano-Martin; Miguel Sanz-Martin; Joaquin Velasco-Jimenez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Dominic A X Schinagl; Paul N Span; Frank J A van den Hoogen; Matthias A W Merkx; Piet J Slootweg; Wim J G Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 9.236