| Literature DB >> 26636006 |
Kazuhiro Kitajima1, Yuko Suenaga1, Tsutomu Minamikawa2, Takahide Komori2, Naoki Otsuki3, Ken-Ichi Nibu3, Ryohei Sasaki4, Tomoo Itoh5, Kazuro Sugimura1.
Abstract
To retrospectively investigate the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT relative to CT for detection of cervical node metastases in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), using histologic evaluation of dissected cervical nodes as the reference standard. Thirty-six patients with OSCC who underwent neck dissection (4 bilateral, 32 unilateral; 250 nodal levels) after FDG-PET/CT. Two observers consensually determined the lesion size and SUVmax of visible cervical nodes and compared the results with pathologic findings at the nodal level. Histopathology revealed nodal metastases in 13 (36.1 %) of 36 patients and 28 (11.2 %) of 250 nodal levels. Using a best discriminative SUVmax cut-off of 3.5 for the node, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for identification of nodal metastases on a level-by-level basis were 67.9, 94.6, and 91.6 %, respectively. The corresponding figures for CT were 42.9, 96.8, and 90.8 %, respectively. The sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT was significantly better than CT (p = 0.023). Moreover, using the level-based modified SUVmax cut-off, the respective figures for FDG-PET/CT were 71.4, 95.9, and 93.2 %, with significantly higher sensitivity (p = 0.013) and accuracy (p = 0.041) than CT. FDG PET/CT with SUVmax is a useful modality for preoperative evaluation of cervical neck lymph node metastases in patients with OSCC.Entities:
Keywords: FDG (fluorine-18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose); Lymph node metastasis; OSCC (oral squamous cell carcinoma); PET/CT (positron emission tomography/computed tomography); SUV (standardized uptake value)
Year: 2015 PMID: 26636006 PMCID: PMC4656255 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1521-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Patient characteristics
| Character | Value |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 23 |
| Female | 13 |
| Age | |
| Mean | 67.3 ± 10.0 |
| Range | 37–88 |
| Primary tumor sites | |
| Oral tongue | 16 |
| Gum | 12 |
| Floor of mouth | 8 |
| T classification | |
| T1 | 5 |
| T2 | 16 |
| T3 | 7 |
| T3 | 8 |
| N classification | |
| N0 | 23 |
| N1 | 3 |
| N2a | 1 |
| N2b | 7 |
| N2c | 2 |
| Neck dissections | |
| Ulilateral | 32 |
| Bilateral | 4 |
| Type of neck dissection | |
| SOHND (levels I–III) | 15 |
| Extended SOHND (levels I–IV) | 5 |
| MRND, typeIII(levels I–V) | 19 |
| LND (levels II–IV) | 1 |
SOHND supramohyoid neck dissection, MRND modified radical neck dissection with preservation of sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein, and spinal accessory nerve, LND lateral neck dissection
Level-by-level diagnostic performance of three methods (CT, PET/CT with best SUVmax cut-off, and PET/CT with level-based modified SUVmax cut-off)
| TP | FN | TN | FP | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95 % CI | 95 % CI | 95 % CI | 95 % CI | 95 % CI | |||||
| CT | 12 | 16 | 215 | 7 | 42.9a,b | 96.8 | 63.2 | 93.1 | 90.8c |
| 24.6–61.2 | 94.5–99.1 | 41.5–84.9 | 89.8–96.4 | 87.2–94.4 | |||||
| FDG-PET/CT using best SUVmax cut-off (3.5) | 19 | 9 | 210 | 12 | 67.9a | 94.6 | 61.3 | 95.9 | 91.6 |
| 50.6–85.2 | 91.6–97.6 | 59.8–62.8 | 93.3–98.5 | 88.2–95.0 | |||||
| FDG-PET/CT usinglevel-based modified SUVmax cut-off | 20 | 8 | 213 | 9 | 71.4b | 95.9 | 69 | 96.4 | 93.2c |
| 54.7–88.1 | 93.3–98.5 | 67.6–70.5 | 93.9–98.9 | 90.1–96.3 |
TP true positive, FN false negative, TN true negative, FP false positive, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, CI confidence interval
aThe sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT with best SUVmax cut-off (3.5) was significantly higher than that of CT (p = 0.023)
bThe sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT with level-based modified SUVmax cut-off was significantly higher than that of CT (p = 0.013)
cThe accuracy of FDG-PET/CT with level-based modified SUVmax cut-off was significantly higher than that of CT (p = 0.041)
Fig. 1A 77-year-old man with level IIa node metastasis arising from cancer of the tongue (pT4N2b). a CT of PET/CT shows one swollen lymph node 20 mm in longest diameter at right level IIa (arrow), suggesting the presence of nodal cancer spread. b FDG-PET/CT shows intense FDG uptake (SUVmax:11.91) corresponding to the right level IIa node seen in a (arrow), suggesting the presence of nodal cancer spread. Examination of the histopathological specimen confirmed extensive lymph node involvement by cancer in this node. Both CT and FDG-PET/CT were true-positive
Fig. 2A 63-year-old man with right level IIa node metastasis arising from cancer of the gum (pT3N2c). a CT of PET/CT shows one swollen lymph node 10 mm in longest diameter at right level IIa (short arrow) and one swollen lymph node 11 mm in longest diameter at left level IIa (long arrow), suggesting absence of nodal cancer spread. b FDG-PET/CT shows moderate FDG uptake (SUVmax:5.34) corresponding to the right level IIa node seen in a (short arrow), suggesting the presence of nodal cancer spread. And mild FDG uptake (SUVmax:2.31) corresponding to the left level IIa node seen in b (long arrow), suggesting absence of nodal cancer spread. Histopathological examination of the specimen confirmed extensive lymph node involvement by cancer in only the right node. CT gave a false-negative result for the right node, whereas FDG-PET/CT gave a true-positive result. Both CT and FDG-PET/CT gave true-negative results for the left node
Fig. 3A 66-year-old man without neck node metastasis arising from the tongue (pT2N0). a CT of PET/CT shows two swollen lymph nodes 10 and 9 mm in longest diameter at left level IIa (arrows), suggesting the absence of nodal cancer spread. b FDG-PET/CT shows moderate FDG uptake (SUVmax:3.71 and 3.56) corresponding to the two left level IIa nodes seen in a (arrows). Examination of the histopathological specimen confirmed no lymph node metastasis. CT gave true-negative result. FDG-PET/CT using SUVmax cut-off (3.5) gave false-positive result, whereas FDG-PET/CT using modified SUVmax cut-off (4.0) gave true-negative result
Level-based analysis
| SUVmax | Best | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | Modality | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Range | ||||||
| Level Ia (n = 37) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 2) | 3.14 ± 1.80 | 1.86–4.41 | 3.5 | 50 % (1/2) | 100 % (35/35) | 97.3 % (36/37) | PET |
| Benign nodes (n = 35) | 1.71 ± 0.66 | 1.0–3.32 | 0 % (0/2) | 100 % (35/35) | 94.6 % (35/37) | CT | |
| Level Ib (n = 42) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 9) | 4.83 ± 3.90 | 1.13–10.27 | 3.5 | 66.7 % (6/9) | 93.9 % (31/33) | 88.1 % (37/42) | PET |
| Benign nodes (n = 33) | 2.12 ± 0.89 | 0.98–4.4 | 22.2 % (2/9) | 93.9 % (31/33) | 78.6 % (33/42) | CT | |
| Level IIa (n = 40) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 11) | 7.77 ± 4.51 | 3.51–17.02 | 4.0 | 72.7 % (8/11) | 90.0 % (26/29) | 85.0 % (34/40) | PET |
| Benign nodes (n = 29) | 2.85 ± 1.06 | 0.95–5.24 | 63.6 % (7/11) | 90.0 % (26/29) | 82.5 % (33/40) | CT | |
| Level IIb (n = 39) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 1) | 2.84 | 2.84 | 2.8 | 100 % (1/1) | 92.1 % (35/38) | 92.3 % (36/39) | PET |
| Benign nodes (n = 38) | 2.85 ± 1.06 | 0.95–5.24 | 100 % (1/1) | 94.7 % (36/38) | 94.8 % (37/39) | CT | |
| Level III (n = 40) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 5) | 6.13 ± 4.44 | 1.53–11.91 | 3.5 | 80.0 % (4/5) | 97.1 % (34/35) | 95.0 % (38/40) | PET |
| Benign nodes (n = 35) | 1.76 ± 0.84 | 0.79–3.77 | 40.0 % (2/5) | 100 % (35/35) | 92.5 % (37/40) | CT | |
| Level IV (n = 27) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 0) | – | 100 % (27/27) | 100 % (27/27) | PET | |||
| Benign nodes (n = 27) | 1.69 ± 0.45 | 0.95–2.67 | – | 100 % (27/27) | 100 % (27/27) | CT | |
| Level V (n = 25) | |||||||
| Metastatic nodes (n = 0) | 100 % (25/25) | 100 % (25/25) | PET | ||||
| Benign nodes (n = 25) | 14.44 ± 0.42 | 0.93–2.52 | 100 % (25/25) | 100 % (25/25) | CT | ||