S Partovi1, A Kohan2, J L Vercher-Conejero2, C Rubbert2, S Margevicius3, M D Schluchter3, C Gaeta2, P Faulhaber2, M R Robbin2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio sasan.partovi@case.edu. 2. From the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (S.M., M.D.S.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging and PET/CT are integrated in the work-up of head and neck cancer patients. The hybrid imaging technology (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging combining morphological and functional information might be attractive in this patient population. The aim of the study was to compare whole-body (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer, both qualitatively in terms of lymph node and distant metastases detection and quantitatively in terms of standardized uptake values measured in (18)F-FDG-avid lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with head and neck cancer underwent both whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR imaging after a single injection of (18)F-FDG. Two groups of readers counted the number of lesions on PET/CT and PET/MR imaging scans. A consensus reading was performed in those cases in which the groups disagreed. Quantitative standardized uptake value measurements were performed by placing spheric ROIs over the lesions in 3 different planes. Weighted and unweighted κ statistics, correlation analysis, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: κ statistics for the number of head and neck lesion lesions counted (pooled across regions) revealed interreader agreement between groups 1 and 2 of 0.47 and 0.56, respectively. Intrareader agreement was 0.67 and 0.63. The consensus reading provided an intrareader agreement of 0.63. For the presence or absence of metastasis, interreader agreement was 0.85 and 0.70. The consensus reading provided an intrareader agreement of 0.72. The correlations between the maximum standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT for primary tumors and lymph node and metastatic lesions were very high (Spearman r = 1.00, 0.93, and 0.92, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with head and neck cancer, (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT provide comparable results in the detection of lymph node and distant metastases. Standardized uptake values derived from (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging can be used reliably in this patient population.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging and PET/CT are integrated in the work-up of head and neck cancerpatients. The hybrid imaging technology (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging combining morphological and functional information might be attractive in this patient population. The aim of the study was to compare whole-body (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer, both qualitatively in terms of lymph node and distant metastases detection and quantitatively in terms of standardized uptake values measured in (18)F-FDG-avid lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with head and neck cancer underwent both whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR imaging after a single injection of (18)F-FDG. Two groups of readers counted the number of lesions on PET/CT and PET/MR imaging scans. A consensus reading was performed in those cases in which the groups disagreed. Quantitative standardized uptake value measurements were performed by placing spheric ROIs over the lesions in 3 different planes. Weighted and unweighted κ statistics, correlation analysis, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: κ statistics for the number of head and neck lesion lesions counted (pooled across regions) revealed interreader agreement between groups 1 and 2 of 0.47 and 0.56, respectively. Intrareader agreement was 0.67 and 0.63. The consensus reading provided an intrareader agreement of 0.63. For the presence or absence of metastasis, interreader agreement was 0.85 and 0.70. The consensus reading provided an intrareader agreement of 0.72. The correlations between the maximum standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT for primary tumors and lymph node and metastatic lesions were very high (Spearman r = 1.00, 0.93, and 0.92, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with head and neck cancer, (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT provide comparable results in the detection of lymph node and distant metastases. Standardized uptake values derived from (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging can be used reliably in this patient population.
Authors: V Schulz; I Torres-Espallardo; S Renisch; Z Hu; N Ojha; P Börnert; M Perkuhn; T Niendorf; W M Schäfer; H Brockmann; T Krohn; A Buhl; R W Günther; F M Mottaghy; G A Krombach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Thomas Wendt; Jens Buentzel; Dirk Esser; Peter Lochner; Andreas Mueller; Stefan Schultze-Mosgau; Annelore Altendorf-Hofmann Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Hai-Rim Shin; Freddie Bray; David Forman; Colin Mathers; Donald Maxwell Parkin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Karsten Beiderwellen; Felix Nensa; Verena Hartung-Knemeyer; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Sharif Kershah; Sasan Partovi; Bryan J Traughber; Raymond F Muzic; Mark D Schluchter; James K O'Donnell; Peter Faulhaber Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Christian Buchbender; Till A Heusner; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Gerald Antoch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David Slouka; Jiri Krcal; Tomas Kostlivy; Petr Hrabacka; Alena Skalova; Hynek Mirka; Ondrej Topolcan; Radek Kucera Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Lorenzo Preda; Giorgio Conte; Luke Bonello; Caterina Giannitto; Laura L Travaini; Sara Raimondi; Paul E Summers; Ansarin Mohssen; Daniela Alterio; Maria Cossu Rocca; Chiara Grana; Francesca Ruju; Massimo Bellomi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Akshat C Pujara; Roy A Raad; Fabio Ponzo; Carolyn Wassong; James S Babb; Linda Moy; Amy N Melsaether Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Xiang Li; Daniel Heber; Ivo Rausch; Dietrich Beitzke; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Sazan Rasul; Michael Kreissl; Markus Mitthauser; Wolfgang Wadsak; Markus Hartenbach; Alexander Haug; Xiaoli Zhang; Christian Loewe; Thomas Beyer; Marcus Hacker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 9.236