INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of adding combined 18F-PET/CT to MRI for T and N staging of the oral and oropharyngeal cancer and calculation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) having histopathology as reference standard. METHODS: PET/CT and MRI were performed in 66 patients with suspected oral and oropharyngeal cancer (41 primary tumors/25 recurrent tumors) and nodal disease (114 nodes). Statistical analysis included the McNemar test, sensitivity, specificity for the diagnostic modalities as well as regression analysis, and Bland-Altman graphs for calculated tumor volumes. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities compared to pathological findings regarding detection of disease (P > or =0.72). The sensitivity/specificity for tumor detection were 100/80% and 96.72/60% for MRI and PET/CT, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity for nodal metastases were 88.46/75% and 83.81/73.91% for MRI and PET/CT, respectively. In 18% of cases, the MRI-based T staging resulted in an overestimation of the pathologic tumor stage. The corresponding rate for PET/CT was 22%. Regarding the treated necks, both modalities showed 100% sensitivity for detection of the recurrent lesions. In necks with histologically N0 staging, MRI and PET/CT gave 22% and 26% false positive findings, respectively. The mean tumor volume in the pathologic specimen was 16.6 +/- 18.6 ml, the mean volume derived by the MR imaging was 17.6 +/- 19.1 ml while the estimated by PET/CT volume was 18.8 +/- 18.1 ml (P < or =0.007 between the three methods). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a better agreement between PET/CT and MRI. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in the local staging of oral cancer is not superior to MRI.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of adding combined 18F-PET/CT to MRI for T and N staging of the oral and oropharyngeal cancer and calculation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) having histopathology as reference standard. METHODS: PET/CT and MRI were performed in 66 patients with suspected oral and oropharyngeal cancer (41 primary tumors/25 recurrent tumors) and nodal disease (114 nodes). Statistical analysis included the McNemar test, sensitivity, specificity for the diagnostic modalities as well as regression analysis, and Bland-Altman graphs for calculated tumor volumes. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities compared to pathological findings regarding detection of disease (P > or =0.72). The sensitivity/specificity for tumor detection were 100/80% and 96.72/60% for MRI and PET/CT, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity for nodal metastases were 88.46/75% and 83.81/73.91% for MRI and PET/CT, respectively. In 18% of cases, the MRI-based T staging resulted in an overestimation of the pathologic tumor stage. The corresponding rate for PET/CT was 22%. Regarding the treated necks, both modalities showed 100% sensitivity for detection of the recurrent lesions. In necks with histologically N0 staging, MRI and PET/CT gave 22% and 26% false positive findings, respectively. The mean tumor volume in the pathologic specimen was 16.6 +/- 18.6 ml, the mean volume derived by the MR imaging was 17.6 +/- 19.1 ml while the estimated by PET/CT volume was 18.8 +/- 18.1 ml (P < or =0.007 between the three methods). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a better agreement between PET/CT and MRI. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in the local staging of oral cancer is not superior to MRI.
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: R J Wong; D T Lin; H Schöder; S G Patel; M Gonen; S Wolden; D G Pfister; J P Shah; S M Larson; D H Kraus Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claude Nahmias; Catherine Lemmens; David Faul; Eric Carlson; Misty Long; Todd Blodgett; Johan Nuyts; David Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Rustain L Morgan; Megan M Eguchi; Adam C Mueller; Stacie L Daugherty; Arya Amini; Sana D Karam Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Christoph Sproll; Christian Buchbender; Elena Rieser; Jan Terjung; Christina Antke; Inga Boeck; Stephan Macht; Axel Scherer; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner; Jörg Handschel Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-07-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Benedikt Michael Schaarschmidt; Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Marcus Ruhlmann; Christoph Bergmann; Verena Ruhlmann; Marc Schlamann; Gerald Antoch; Michael Forsting; Axel Wetter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 9.236