PURPOSE: We prospectively compared PET/CT and conventional imaging for initial staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: A total of 111 patients with histologically proven NPC were investigated with PET/CT and conventional imaging (head-and-neck MRI, chest X-ray, abdominal ultrasound, and bone scan) before treatment. The respective findings were reviewed independently and then compared with each other. RESULTS: With regard to T staging, PET/CT showed a discrepancy with head-and-neck MRI in 36 (32.4%) of the study subjects. With regard to N staging, PET/CT showed a discrepancy with head-and-neck MRI in 15 (13.5%) patients. Among the discordant cases, MRI was superior in demonstrating tumor involvement in the parapharyngeal space, skull base, intracranial area, sphenoid sinus, and retropharyngeal nodes while PET/CT was superior in demonstrating neck nodal metastasis. PET/CT disclosed 13 of 16 patients with distant malignancy compared with four patients disclosed by conventional imaging work-up. The false-positive rate of PET/CT was 18.8%. PET/CT correctly modified M staging in eight patients (7.2%) and disclosed a second primary lung malignancy in one patient (0.9%). CONCLUSION: In NPC patients, MRI appears to be superior to PET/CT for the assessment of locoregional invasion and retropharyngeal nodal metastasis. PET/CT is more accurate than MRI for determining cervical nodal metastasis and should be the better reference for the neck status. PET/CT has an acceptable diagnostic yield and a low false-positive rate for the detection of distant malignancy and can replace conventional work-up to this aim. PET/CT and head-and-neck MRI are suggested for the initial staging of NPC patients.
PURPOSE: We prospectively compared PET/CT and conventional imaging for initial staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: A total of 111 patients with histologically proven NPC were investigated with PET/CT and conventional imaging (head-and-neck MRI, chest X-ray, abdominal ultrasound, and bone scan) before treatment. The respective findings were reviewed independently and then compared with each other. RESULTS: With regard to T staging, PET/CT showed a discrepancy with head-and-neck MRI in 36 (32.4%) of the study subjects. With regard to N staging, PET/CT showed a discrepancy with head-and-neck MRI in 15 (13.5%) patients. Among the discordant cases, MRI was superior in demonstrating tumor involvement in the parapharyngeal space, skull base, intracranial area, sphenoid sinus, and retropharyngeal nodes while PET/CT was superior in demonstrating neck nodal metastasis. PET/CT disclosed 13 of 16 patients with distant malignancy compared with four patients disclosed by conventional imaging work-up. The false-positive rate of PET/CT was 18.8%. PET/CT correctly modified M staging in eight patients (7.2%) and disclosed a second primary lung malignancy in one patient (0.9%). CONCLUSION: In NPCpatients, MRI appears to be superior to PET/CT for the assessment of locoregional invasion and retropharyngeal nodal metastasis. PET/CT is more accurate than MRI for determining cervical nodal metastasis and should be the better reference for the neck status. PET/CT has an acceptable diagnostic yield and a low false-positive rate for the detection of distant malignancy and can replace conventional work-up to this aim. PET/CT and head-and-neck MRI are suggested for the initial staging of NPCpatients.
Authors: Arnold C Paulino; Mary Koshy; Rebecca Howell; David Schuster; Lawrence W Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Quinten C Black; Inga S Grills; Larry L Kestin; Ching-Yee O Wong; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher Scarfone; William C Lavely; Anthony J Cmelak; Dominique Delbeke; William H Martin; Dean Billheimer; Dennis E Hallahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel K L Cheuk; Noah D Sabin; Moinul Hossain; Amy Wozniak; Mihir Naik; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Matthew J Krasin; Barry L Shulkin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yi-Kan Cheng; Li-Zhi Liu; Ning Jiang; Dan Yue; Ling-Long Tang; Fan Zhang; Li Lin; Xu Liu; Lei Chen; Jun Ma Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 3.621