BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET) has been proposed to enhance preoperative assessment of cervical lymph node status in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Management is most controversial for patients with a clinically negative (cN0) neck. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases in patients with HNSCC. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET in patients with HNSCC. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves using hierarchical regression models. We also compared the performance of 18F-FDG PET with that of conventional diagnostic methods (ie, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration) by analyzing studies that had also used these diagnostic methods on the same patients. RESULTS: Across 32 studies (1236 patients), 18F-FDG PET sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72% to 85%) and specificity was 86% (95% CI = 83% to 89%). For cN0 patients, sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET was only 50% (95% CI = 37% to 63%), whereas specificity was 87% (95% CI = 76% to 93%). Overall, LR+ was 5.84 (95% CI = 4.59 to 7.42) and LR- was 0.24 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.33). In studies in which both 18F-FDG PET and conventional diagnostic tests were performed, sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET were 80% and 86%, respectively, and of conventional diagnostic tests were 75% and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in the overall pretreatment evaluation of patients with HNSCC but still does not detect disease in half of the patients with metastasis and cN0.
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET) has been proposed to enhance preoperative assessment of cervical lymph node status in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Management is most controversial for patients with a clinically negative (cN0) neck. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases in patients with HNSCC. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET in patients with HNSCC. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves using hierarchical regression models. We also compared the performance of 18F-FDG PET with that of conventional diagnostic methods (ie, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration) by analyzing studies that had also used these diagnostic methods on the same patients. RESULTS: Across 32 studies (1236 patients), 18F-FDG PET sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72% to 85%) and specificity was 86% (95% CI = 83% to 89%). For cN0 patients, sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET was only 50% (95% CI = 37% to 63%), whereas specificity was 87% (95% CI = 76% to 93%). Overall, LR+ was 5.84 (95% CI = 4.59 to 7.42) and LR- was 0.24 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.33). In studies in which both 18F-FDG PET and conventional diagnostic tests were performed, sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET were 80% and 86%, respectively, and of conventional diagnostic tests were 75% and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSION:18F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in the overall pretreatment evaluation of patients with HNSCC but still does not detect disease in half of the patients with metastasis and cN0.
Authors: M Amit; T C Yen; C T Liao; P Chaturvedi; J P Agarwal; L P Kowalski; Hugo F Kohler; A Ebrahimi; J R Clark; C R Cernea; S J Brandao; M Kreppel; J Zöller; M D Fliss; G Bachar; T Shpitzer; V A Bolzoni; P R Patel; S Jonnalagadda; K T Robbins; N G Iyer; T Skanthakumar; J P Shah; S G Patel; Z Gil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Begoña Caballero Perea; Antonio Cabrera Villegas; José Miguel Delgado Rodríguez; María José García Velloso; Ana María García Vicente; Carlos Huerga Cabrerizo; Rosa Morera López; Luis Alberto Pérez Romasanta; Moisés Sáez Beltrán Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2012-11-17
Authors: Soon-Hyun Ahn; Hyun Jun Hong; Soon Young Kwon; Kee Hwan Kwon; Jong-Lyel Roh; Junsun Ryu; Jun Hee Park; Seung-Kuk Baek; Guk Haeng Lee; Sei Young Lee; Jin Choon Lee; Man Ki Chung; Young Hoon Joo; Yong Bae Ji; Jeong Hun Hah; Minsu Kwon; Young Min Park; Chang Myeon Song; Sung-Chan Shin; Chang Hwan Ryu; Doh Young Lee; Young Chan Lee; Jae Won Chang; Ha Min Jeong; Jae-Keun Cho; Wonjae Cha; Byung Joon Chun; Ik Joon Choi; Hyo Geun Choi; Kang Dae Lee Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.372
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