R de Bree1, B Pouw2, D A Heuveling3, J A Castelijns4. 1. From the Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (R.d.B., D.A.H.) Department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology (R.d.B.), UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands r.debree@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine (B.P.), Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. From the Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (R.d.B., D.A.H.). 4. Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (J.A.C.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Criteria for ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (USgFNAC) for the detection of occult lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically negative head and neck cancer are based on the morphology of cervical lymph nodes. To improve the selection of lymph nodes for USgFNAC, we examined the feasibility of fused freehand single-photon emission tomography ultrasound-guided fine-needle cytology (freehand SPECT-USgFNAC) of sentinel nodes in patients with early stage oral and head and neck skin cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with early-stage head and neck cancer (4 oral and 2 head and neck skin cancers) and a clinically negative neck who were scheduled for transoral or local excision and a sentinel node procedure underwent USgFNAC and freehand SPECT-USgFNAC preoperatively. RESULTS: All freehand SPECT sonographic examinations were technically successful in terms of identifying sentinel nodes. All aspirates of sentinel nodes obtained by freehand SPECT-USgFNAC contained substantial radioactivity, confirming puncture of the sentinel nodes. USgFNAC evaluated 13 lymph nodes; freehand SPECT-USgFNAC, 19 nodes; and sentinel node biopsy, 13 nodes. Three sentinel nodes were histopathologically positive and were selected for aspiration cytology by freehand SPECT-USgFNAC, but not by conventional ultrasound. The cytologic examination findings of the aspirations were negative or inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Freehand SPECT ultrasound can identify sentinel nodes and could potentially improve USgFNAC in patients with head and neck cancer by better selection of lymph nodes at highest risk of having metastases (sentinel nodes), but its sensitivity is limited by sampling error and insufficient aspirated material for cytology.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Criteria for ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (USgFNAC) for the detection of occult lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically negative head and neck cancer are based on the morphology of cervical lymph nodes. To improve the selection of lymph nodes for USgFNAC, we examined the feasibility of fused freehand single-photon emission tomography ultrasound-guided fine-needle cytology (freehand SPECT-USgFNAC) of sentinel nodes in patients with early stage oral and head and neck skin cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with early-stage head and neck cancer (4 oral and 2 head and neck skin cancers) and a clinically negative neck who were scheduled for transoral or local excision and a sentinel node procedure underwent USgFNAC and freehand SPECT-USgFNAC preoperatively. RESULTS: All freehand SPECT sonographic examinations were technically successful in terms of identifying sentinel nodes. All aspirates of sentinel nodes obtained by freehand SPECT-USgFNAC contained substantial radioactivity, confirming puncture of the sentinel nodes. USgFNAC evaluated 13 lymph nodes; freehand SPECT-USgFNAC, 19 nodes; and sentinel node biopsy, 13 nodes. Three sentinel nodes were histopathologically positive and were selected for aspiration cytology by freehand SPECT-USgFNAC, but not by conventional ultrasound. The cytologic examination findings of the aspirations were negative or inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Freehand SPECT ultrasound can identify sentinel nodes and could potentially improve USgFNAC in patients with head and neck cancer by better selection of lymph nodes at highest risk of having metastases (sentinel nodes), but its sensitivity is limited by sampling error and insufficient aspirated material for cytology.
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Ken Herrmann; Alexander Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Eva Geissinger; Vanessa Wild; Stefan Hartmann; Constantin Lapa; Christian Linz; Urs Müller-Richter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Remco de Bree; Robert P Takes; Jonas A Castelijns; Jesus E Medina; Sandro J Stoeckli; Anthony A Mancuso; Jennifer L Hunt; Juan P Rodrigo; Asterios Triantafyllou; Afshin Teymoortash; Francisco J Civantos; Alessandra Rinaldo; Karen T Pitman; Marc Hamoir; K Thomas Robbins; Carl E Silver; Otto S Hoekstra; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Eline J C Nieuwenhuis; Lies H Jaspars; Jonas A Castelijns; Branco Bakker; Richard G A Wishaupt; Fedor Denkers; C René Leemans; Gordon B Snow; Ruud H Brakenhoff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A L Mihaljevic; A Rieger; B Belloni; R Hein; A Okur; K Scheidhauer; T Schuster; H Friess; M E Martignoni Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Gonca Safak; Andreas Cramer; Achim Wöckel; Anja Gesierich; Elena Hartmann; Jan-Stefan Schmid; Franz Kaiser; Andreas K Buck; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gijs H KleinJan; Baris Karakullukçu; W Martin C Klop; Thijs Engelen; Nynke S van den Berg; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.138