OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-Analysis. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies. We compared the performance of whole body PET/PET-CT with that of conventional anatomic imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional anatomic imaging on the same patients. RESULTS: Across eight studies (1,147 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET/PET-CT were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), respectively, and for conventional anatomic imaging were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29-0.61) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that PET/PET-CT had higher sensitivity than conventional anatomic imaging for nasopharyngeal cancer (0.82 vs. 0.30) and non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (0.85 vs. 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional anatomic imaging, whole body PET/PET-CT has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-Analysis. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies. We compared the performance of whole body PET/PET-CT with that of conventional anatomic imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional anatomic imaging on the same patients. RESULTS: Across eight studies (1,147 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET/PET-CT were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), respectively, and for conventional anatomic imaging were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29-0.61) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that PET/PET-CT had higher sensitivity than conventional anatomic imaging for nasopharyngeal cancer (0.82 vs. 0.30) and non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (0.85 vs. 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional anatomic imaging, whole body PET/PET-CT has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.
Authors: Magis Mandapathil; Marion Roessler; Jochen A Werner; Carl E Silver; Alessandra Rinaldo; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: A Nøhr; S B Gram; B Charabi; J F Tvedskov; I Wessel; J Friborg; K Håkansson; C von Buchwald; B M Fischer; Jacob H Rasmussen Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Noam A VanderWalde; Ramzi G Salloum; Tsai-Ling Liu; Mark C Hornbrook; Maureen C O'Keeffe Rosetti; Debra P Ritzwoller; Paul A Fishman; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Amir H Khandani; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: J Madana; Gregoire B Morand; Luz Barona-Lleo; Martin J Black; Alex M Mlynarek; Michael P Hier Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-02-04