PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were: (a) to prospectively assess the correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (SCC); and (b) to assess ADC and SUVmax values in relation to different tumour grades and stages in our patient population. METHODS: The study group comprised 31 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who were examined using a 3T MRI scanner with a 16-channel head and neck coil. In addition to routine sequences, axial (DWIBS) and sagittal (DW-EPI) diffusion-weighted sequences were obtained using b-values of 0 mm(2)/s and 800 mm(2)/s. The ADC maps were calculated automatically. The ADC values of the tumours were measured with three regions of interest (ROIs) of standard size, and an ROI covering the entire tumour. In all patients, contrast-enhanced, whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed within 2 weeks of the MRI examination. SUVmax was measured for every tumour using a 3-D freehand ROI that covered the entire tumour. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used for group comparisons. The Spearman rank correlation test was performed for ADC values. RESULTS: Mean ADC values in the 31 SCC were 0.902 (± 0.134) with a ROI of standard size, and 0.928 (± 0.160) with the large ROI measurements on the axial DWIBS sequence. The ADC values of the tumours were significantly higher when measured with the sagittal DW-EPI sequence: 1.051 (± 0.211) and 1.082 (± 0.208). We observed no significant differences in ADC values and SUVmax between the various T stages or histological grades of the tumours. SUVmax values (26.5 ± 12) did not correlate with ADC values on DWIBS or EPI. CONCLUSION: There is no correlation between the FDG uptake and the ADC value in head and neck SCC. The three different tumour grades and four tumour stages present in our study population could not be differentiated based on ADC values or SUV.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were: (a) to prospectively assess the correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (SCC); and (b) to assess ADC and SUVmax values in relation to different tumour grades and stages in our patient population. METHODS: The study group comprised 31 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who were examined using a 3T MRI scanner with a 16-channel head and neck coil. In addition to routine sequences, axial (DWIBS) and sagittal (DW-EPI) diffusion-weighted sequences were obtained using b-values of 0 mm(2)/s and 800 mm(2)/s. The ADC maps were calculated automatically. The ADC values of the tumours were measured with three regions of interest (ROIs) of standard size, and an ROI covering the entire tumour. In all patients, contrast-enhanced, whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed within 2 weeks of the MRI examination. SUVmax was measured for every tumour using a 3-D freehand ROI that covered the entire tumour. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used for group comparisons. The Spearman rank correlation test was performed for ADC values. RESULTS: Mean ADC values in the 31 SCC were 0.902 (± 0.134) with a ROI of standard size, and 0.928 (± 0.160) with the large ROI measurements on the axial DWIBS sequence. The ADC values of the tumours were significantly higher when measured with the sagittal DW-EPI sequence: 1.051 (± 0.211) and 1.082 (± 0.208). We observed no significant differences in ADC values and SUVmax between the various T stages or histological grades of the tumours. SUVmax values (26.5 ± 12) did not correlate with ADC values on DWIBS or EPI. CONCLUSION: There is no correlation between the FDG uptake and the ADC value in head and neck SCC. The three different tumour grades and four tumour stages present in our study population could not be differentiated based on ADC values or SUV.
Authors: Piet Dirix; Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Sigrid Stroobants; Robert Hermans; Sandra Nuyts Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: V A Passero; B F Branstetter; Y Shuai; D E Heron; M K Gibson; S Y Lai; S W Kim; J R Grandis; R L Ferris; J T Johnson; A Argiris Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 32.976
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: J Wang; S Takashima; F Takayama; S Kawakami; A Saito; T Matsushita; M Momose; T Ishiyama Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Laurie Loevner; Harry Quon; Eric Sherman; Gregory Weinstein; Alex Kilger; Harish Poptani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kerstin Zwirner; Daniela Thorwarth; René M Winter; Stefan Welz; Jakob Weiss; Nina F Schwenzer; Holger Schmidt; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Daniel Zips; Sergios Gatidis Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Myo Min; Mark T Lee; Peter Lin; Lois Holloway; Dj Wijesekera; Dinesh Gooneratne; Robba Rai; Wei Xuan; Allan Fowler; Dion Forstner; Gary Liney Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Charlotte S Schouten; Remco de Bree; Lisa van der Putten; Daniel P Noij; Otto S Hoekstra; Emile F I Comans; Birgit I Witte; Patricia A Doornaert; C René Leemans; Jonas A Castelijns Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2014-08
Authors: Lisa C Adams; Keno K Bressem; Julia Brangsch; Carolin Reimann; Kristin Nowak; Winfried Brenner; Marcus R Makowski Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Arthur Varoquaux; Olivier Rager; Karl-Olof Lovblad; Karen Masterson; Pavel Dulguerov; Osman Ratib; Christoph D Becker; Minerva Becker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236