PURPOSE: To determine whether the time course of 18-fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) activity in multiple consecutively obtained 18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans predictably identifies metastatic cervical adenopathy in patients with oral/head and neck cancer. It is hypothesized that the activity will increase significantly over time only in those lymph nodes harboring metastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed whereby patients with oral/head and neck cancer underwent consecutive imaging at 9 time points with PET/CT from 60 to 115 minutes after injection with (18)F-FDG. The primary predictor variable was the status of the lymph nodes based on dynamic PET/CT imaging. Metastatic lymph nodes were defined as those that showed an increase greater than or equal to 10% over the baseline standard uptake values. The primary outcome variable was the pathologic status of the lymph node. RESULTS: A total of 2,237 lymph nodes were evaluated histopathologically in the 83 neck dissections that were performed in 74 patients. A total of 119 lymph nodes were noted to have hypermetabolic activity on the 90-minute (static) portion of the study and were able to be assessed by time points. When we compared the PET/CT time point (dynamic) data with the histopathologic analysis of the lymph nodes, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 60.3%, 70.5%, 66.0%, 65.2%, and 65.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dynamic PET/CT imaging does not permit the ablative surgeon to depend only on the results of the PET/CT study to determine which patients will benefit from neck dissection. As such, we maintain that surgeons should continue to rely on clinical judgment and maintain a low threshold for executing neck dissection in patients with oral/head and neck cancer, including those patients with N0 neck designations.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the time course of 18-fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) activity in multiple consecutively obtained 18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans predictably identifies metastatic cervical adenopathy in patients with oral/head and neck cancer. It is hypothesized that the activity will increase significantly over time only in those lymph nodes harboring metastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed whereby patients with oral/head and neck cancer underwent consecutive imaging at 9 time points with PET/CT from 60 to 115 minutes after injection with (18)F-FDG. The primary predictor variable was the status of the lymph nodes based on dynamic PET/CT imaging. Metastatic lymph nodes were defined as those that showed an increase greater than or equal to 10% over the baseline standard uptake values. The primary outcome variable was the pathologic status of the lymph node. RESULTS: A total of 2,237 lymph nodes were evaluated histopathologically in the 83 neck dissections that were performed in 74 patients. A total of 119 lymph nodes were noted to have hypermetabolic activity on the 90-minute (static) portion of the study and were able to be assessed by time points. When we compared the PET/CT time point (dynamic) data with the histopathologic analysis of the lymph nodes, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 60.3%, 70.5%, 66.0%, 65.2%, and 65.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dynamic PET/CT imaging does not permit the ablative surgeon to depend only on the results of the PET/CT study to determine which patients will benefit from neck dissection. As such, we maintain that surgeons should continue to rely on clinical judgment and maintain a low threshold for executing neck dissection in patients with oral/head and neck cancer, including those patients with N0 neck designations.
Authors: Val J Lowe; Fenghai Duan; Rathan M Subramaniam; JoRean D Sicks; Justin Romanoff; Twyla Bartel; Jian Q Michael Yu; Brian Nussenbaum; Jeremy Richmon; Charles D Arnold; David Cognetti; Brendan C Stack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carryn M Anderson; Tangel Chang; Michael M Graham; Michael D Marquardt; Anna Button; Brian J Smith; Yusuf Menda; Wenqing Sun; Nitin A Pagedar; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Antti Silvoniemi; Mueez U Din; Sami Suilamo; Tony Shepherd; Heikki Minn Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Douglas A Murrey; Sabrina M Smith; Edward W Martin; Nathan C Hall Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.430