Yuko Suenaga1, Kazuhiro Kitajima2, Takeaki Ishihara3, Ryohei Sasaki4, Naoki Otsuki5, Ken-Ichi Nibu6, Tsutomu Minamikawa7, Naomi Kiyota8, Kazuro Sugimura9. 1. Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. ysue1215@ktj.biglobe.ne.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. kitajima@med.kobe-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate, School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. takeaki@med.kobe-u.ac.jp. 4. Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate, School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. yuunasasaki@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kobe University Graduate, School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. naokies1964jp@gmail.com. 6. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kobe University Graduate, School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. buken@gmail.com. 7. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. minamina@med.kobe-u.ac.jp. 8. Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Kobe University Hospital, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. nkiyota@med.kobe-u.ac.jp. 9. Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. sugimura@med.kobe-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of PET/CT using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with IV contrast for suspected recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: One hundred and seventy patients previously treated for HNSCC underwent PET/CT, consisting of non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT, to investigate suspected recurrence. Diagnostic performance of PET/contrast-enhanced CT (PET/ceCT), PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT (PET/ncCT) and contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) for local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis, overall recurrence and second primary cancer was evaluated. The reference standard included histopathology, treatment change and imaging follow-up. RESULTS: The patient-based areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for ceCT, PET/ncCT and PET/ceCT were 0.82, 0.96 and 0.98 for local recurrence, 0.73, 0.86 and 0.86 for regional recurrence, 0.86, 0.91 and 0.92 for distant metastasis, 0.72, 0.86 and 0.87 for overall recurrence, and 0.86, 0.89 and 0.91 for a second primary cancer. Both PET/ceCT and PET/ncCT statistically showed larger AUC than ceCT for recurrence, and the difference between PET/ceCT and PET/ncCT for local recurrence reached a significant level (p = 0.039). The accuracy of PET/ceCT for diagnosing overall recurrence was high, irrespective of the time interval after the last treatment (83.3-94.1 %). CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT was a more accurate HNSCC restaging tool than ceCT. The added value of ceCT at FDG-PET/CT is minimal. KEY POINTS: • FDG-PET/CT is a more accurate post-treatment surveillance tool than ceCT for HNSCC. • FDG-PET/ceCT was useful, irrespective of the time interval after the last treatment. • FDG-PET/ceCT showed high negative predictive value and limited positive predictive value. • The added value of ceCT at FDG-PET/CT is minimal and likely not clinically relevant.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of PET/CT using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with IV contrast for suspected recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: One hundred and seventy patients previously treated for HNSCC underwent PET/CT, consisting of non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT, to investigate suspected recurrence. Diagnostic performance of PET/contrast-enhanced CT (PET/ceCT), PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT (PET/ncCT) and contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) for local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis, overall recurrence and second primary cancer was evaluated. The reference standard included histopathology, treatment change and imaging follow-up. RESULTS: The patient-based areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for ceCT, PET/ncCT and PET/ceCT were 0.82, 0.96 and 0.98 for local recurrence, 0.73, 0.86 and 0.86 for regional recurrence, 0.86, 0.91 and 0.92 for distant metastasis, 0.72, 0.86 and 0.87 for overall recurrence, and 0.86, 0.89 and 0.91 for a second primary cancer. Both PET/ceCT and PET/ncCT statistically showed larger AUC than ceCT for recurrence, and the difference between PET/ceCT and PET/ncCT for local recurrence reached a significant level (p = 0.039). The accuracy of PET/ceCT for diagnosing overall recurrence was high, irrespective of the time interval after the last treatment (83.3-94.1 %). CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/CT was a more accurate HNSCC restaging tool than ceCT. The added value of ceCT at FDG-PET/CT is minimal. KEY POINTS: • FDG-PET/CT is a more accurate post-treatment surveillance tool than ceCT for HNSCC. • FDG-PET/ceCT was useful, irrespective of the time interval after the last treatment. • FDG-PET/ceCT showed high negative predictive value and limited positive predictive value. • The added value of ceCT at FDG-PET/CT is minimal and likely not clinically relevant.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-FDG; Enhanced CT; Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC); Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT); Recurrence
Authors: R Edward Coleman; Dominique Delbeke; Milton J Guiberteau; Peter S Conti; Henry D Royal; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Barry A Siegel; Michael F Federle; David W Townsend; Lincoln L Berland Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Amy G Rabalais; Rohan Walvekar; Daniel Nuss; Andrew McWhorter; Charles Wood; Robert Fields; Donald E Mercante; Anna M Pou Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Balasubramanya Rangaswamy; M Reza Fardanesh; Eric M Genden; Eunice E Park; Girish Fatterpekar; Zara Patel; Jongho Kim; Peter M Som; Lale Kostakoglu Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: M McDermott; M Hughes; T Rath; J T Johnson; D E Heron; G J Kubicek; S W Kim; R L Ferris; U Duvvuri; J P Ohr; B F Branstetter Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Jovanovic; I G van der Tol; P J Kostense; E A Schulten; N de Vries; G B Snow; I van der Waal Journal: Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol Date: 1994-07
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Esther Mena; Matthew J Kruse; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Martin Grimm; Sebastian Hoefert; Michael Krimmel; Thorsten Biegner; Oliver Feyen; Peter Teriete; Siegmar Reinert Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2016-02-13
Authors: Asaf Senft; Gül Yildirim; Otto S Hoekstra; Jonas A Castelijns; C René Leemans; Remco de Bree Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: G Paone; F Martucci; V Espeli; L Ceriani; G Treglia; T Ruberto; A Richetti; R Piantanida; L Giovanella Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 3.161