PURPOSE: We investigated PET/CT diagnostic criteria for differentiating benign from malignant parotid lesions with focal (18)F-FDG uptake. METHODS: The subjects of the study were 272 patients who exhibited focal (18)F-FDG uptake of the parotid gland. Sixty-eight pathologically confirmed parotid lesions from 67 patients were included. The maximum SUV (SUVmax), uptake patterns (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous), size measured by CT, maximum Hounsfield units (HUmax) and margins on CT (well vs. ill defined) of each parotid lesion on PET/CT images were compared with final diagnoses. RESULTS: Thirty-two parotid lesions were histologically proven to be malignant. There were significant differences in uptake patterns (cancer incidence, heterogeneous:homogeneous = 79.2%:29.5%, p < 0.0001) and margins on CT (cancer incidence, ill:well defined = 84.4%:13.3%, p < 0.0001) between benign and malignant lesions. The cancer risks of parotid lesions were 89.5% with heterogeneous uptake and ill-defined margins, 70.6% with heterogeneous uptake or ill-defined margins (no overlap in subjects) and 9.3% with homogeneous uptake and well-defined margins (p < 0.0001). When any lesion with heterogeneous uptake or ill-defined margins was regarded as malignant, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 90.6% (29/32), 80.6% (29/36), 80.6% (29/36), 90.6% (29/32) and 85.6% (58/68), respectively. For predicting malignancy, combined PET/CT criteria showed better sensitivity, NPV and accuracy than PET-only criteria, and had a tendency to have more accurate results than CT-only criteria. There were no significant differences in SUVmax, size or HUmax between benign and malignant lesions. CONCLUSION: Uptake patterns and margins on CT are useful PET/CT diagnostic criteria for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
PURPOSE: We investigated PET/CT diagnostic criteria for differentiating benign from malignant parotid lesions with focal (18)F-FDG uptake. METHODS: The subjects of the study were 272 patients who exhibited focal (18)F-FDG uptake of the parotid gland. Sixty-eight pathologically confirmed parotid lesions from 67 patients were included. The maximum SUV (SUVmax), uptake patterns (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous), size measured by CT, maximum Hounsfield units (HUmax) and margins on CT (well vs. ill defined) of each parotid lesion on PET/CT images were compared with final diagnoses. RESULTS: Thirty-two parotid lesions were histologically proven to be malignant. There were significant differences in uptake patterns (cancer incidence, heterogeneous:homogeneous = 79.2%:29.5%, p < 0.0001) and margins on CT (cancer incidence, ill:well defined = 84.4%:13.3%, p < 0.0001) between benign and malignant lesions. The cancer risks of parotid lesions were 89.5% with heterogeneous uptake and ill-defined margins, 70.6% with heterogeneous uptake or ill-defined margins (no overlap in subjects) and 9.3% with homogeneous uptake and well-defined margins (p < 0.0001). When any lesion with heterogeneous uptake or ill-defined margins was regarded as malignant, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 90.6% (29/32), 80.6% (29/36), 80.6% (29/36), 90.6% (29/32) and 85.6% (58/68), respectively. For predicting malignancy, combined PET/CT criteria showed better sensitivity, NPV and accuracy than PET-only criteria, and had a tendency to have more accurate results than CT-only criteria. There were no significant differences in SUVmax, size or HUmax between benign and malignant lesions. CONCLUSION: Uptake patterns and margins on CT are useful PET/CT diagnostic criteria for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
Authors: D Rubello; C Nanni; P Castellucci; L Rampin; M Farsad; R Franchi; G Mariani; G Menaldo; S Fanti Journal: Panminerva Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.197
Authors: Ayse Tuba Karagulle Kendi; Kelly R Magliocca; Amanda Corey; James R Galt; Jeffrey Switchenko; J Trad Wadsworth; Mark W El-Deiry; David M Schuster; Nabil F Saba; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marc C Mabray; Spencer C Behr; David M Naeger; Robert R Flavell; Christine M Glastonbury Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 1.605