Céline Heimburger1,2,3, Francis Veillon4, David Taïeb5,6,7, Bernard Goichot8, Sophie Riehm4, Julie Petit-Thomas9, Gerlinde Averous10, Marcela Cavalcanti4, Fabrice Hubelé1,2,3, Gerard Chabrier8, Izzie Jacques Namer1,2,3, Anne Charpiot9, Alessio Imperiale11,12,13,14. 1. Department of Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 2. ICube, UMR 7357, CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 3. FMTS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, La Timone University Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. 6. European Center for Research in Medical Imaging, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. 7. Inserm UMR1068 Marseille Cancerology Research Center, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 9. Department of Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 10. Department of Pathology, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 11. Department of Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. alessio.imperiale@chru-strasbourg.fr. 12. ICube, UMR 7357, CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. alessio.imperiale@chru-strasbourg.fr. 13. FMTS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. alessio.imperiale@chru-strasbourg.fr. 14. Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, Hautepierre University Hospital, 1, Avenue Molière, 67098, Strasbourg Cedex, France. alessio.imperiale@chru-strasbourg.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Head and neck paragangliomas (HNPGLs) can relapse after primary treatment. Optimal imaging protocols have not yet been established for posttreatment evaluation. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic value of 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MR/CT angiography (MRA/CTA) in HNPGL patients with clinical relapse during their follow-up. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients presenting with local pain, tinnitus, dysphagia, hoarse voice, cranial nerve involvement, deafness, or retrotympanic mass appearing during follow-up after the initial treatment of HNPGLs were retrospectively evaluated. Patients underwent both 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MRA (15 patents) or CTA (1 patent). Both methods were first assessed under blinded conditions and afterwards correlated. Head and neck imaging abnormalities without histological confirmation were considered true-positive results based on a consensus between radiologists and nuclear physicians and on further 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and/or MRA. RESULTS: 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MRA/CTA were concordant in 14 patients and in disagreement in 2 patients. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MRA/CTA identified, respectively, 12 and 10 presumed recurrent HNPGLs in 12 patients. The two lesions diagnosed by PET/CT only were confirmed during follow-up by otoscopic examination and MRA performed 29 and 17 months later. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT images were only slightly influenced by the posttreatment sequelae, showing a better interobserver reproducibility than MRA/CTA. Finally, in 2 of the 16 studied patients, 18F-FDOPA PET/CT detected two additional synchronous primary HNPGLs. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDOPA PET/CT is highly sensitive in posttreatment evaluation of patients with HNPGLs, and also offers better interobserver reproducibility than MRA/CTA and whole-body examination. We therefore suggest that 18F-FDOPA PET/CT is performed as the first diagnostic imaging modality in symptomatic patients with suspicion of HNPGL relapse after primary treatment when 68Ga-labeled somatostatin analogues are not available.
PURPOSE: Head and neck paragangliomas (HNPGLs) can relapse after primary treatment. Optimal imaging protocols have not yet been established for posttreatment evaluation. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic value of 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MR/CT angiography (MRA/CTA) in HNPGL patients with clinical relapse during their follow-up. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients presenting with local pain, tinnitus, dysphagia, hoarse voice, cranial nerve involvement, deafness, or retrotympanic mass appearing during follow-up after the initial treatment of HNPGLs were retrospectively evaluated. Patients underwent both 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MRA (15 patents) or CTA (1 patent). Both methods were first assessed under blinded conditions and afterwards correlated. Head and neck imaging abnormalities without histological confirmation were considered true-positive results based on a consensus between radiologists and nuclear physicians and on further 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and/or MRA. RESULTS:18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MRA/CTA were concordant in 14 patients and in disagreement in 2 patients. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT and MRA/CTA identified, respectively, 12 and 10 presumed recurrent HNPGLs in 12 patients. The two lesions diagnosed by PET/CT only were confirmed during follow-up by otoscopic examination and MRA performed 29 and 17 months later. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT images were only slightly influenced by the posttreatment sequelae, showing a better interobserver reproducibility than MRA/CTA. Finally, in 2 of the 16 studied patients, 18F-FDOPA PET/CT detected two additional synchronous primary HNPGLs. CONCLUSION:18F-FDOPA PET/CT is highly sensitive in posttreatment evaluation of patients with HNPGLs, and also offers better interobserver reproducibility than MRA/CTA and whole-body examination. We therefore suggest that 18F-FDOPA PET/CT is performed as the first diagnostic imaging modality in symptomatic patients with suspicion of HNPGL relapse after primary treatment when 68Ga-labeled somatostatin analogues are not available.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-FDOPA; Head and neck; Magnetic resonance angiography; Paraganglioma; Positron emission tomography; Recurrence
Authors: Martijn van Essen; Eric P Krenning; Peter P Kooij; Willem H Bakker; Richard A Feelders; Wouter W de Herder; John G Wolbers; Dik J Kwekkeboom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: B E Baysal; J E Willett-Brozick; E C Lawrence; C M Drovdlic; S A Savul; D R McLeod; H A Yee; D E Brackmann; W H Slattery; E N Myers; R E Ferrell; W S Rubinstein Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Sebastian M Arnold; Ralph Strecker; Klaus Scheffler; Joachim Spreer; Jörg Schipper; Hartmut P H Neumann; Joachim Klisch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Leonie T van Hulsteijn; Eleonora P M Corssmit; Ida E M Coremans; Johannes W A Smit; Jeroen C Jansen; Olaf M Dekkers Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Aurélien Archier; Arthur Varoquaux; Philippe Garrigue; Marion Montava; Carole Guerin; Sophie Gabriel; Eva Beschmout; Isabelle Morange; Nicolas Fakhry; Frédéric Castinetti; Frédéric Sebag; Anne Barlier; Anderson Loundou; Benjamin Guillet; Karel Pacak; David Taïeb Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ingo Janssen; Clara C Chen; David Taieb; Nicholas J Patronas; Corina M Millo; Karen T Adams; Joan Nambuba; Peter Herscovitch; Samira M Sadowski; Antonio T Fojo; Inga Buchmann; Electron Kebebew; Karel Pacak Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David Taïeb; Rodney J Hicks; Elif Hindié; Benjamin A Guillet; Anca Avram; Pietro Ghedini; Henri J Timmers; Aaron T Scott; Saeed Elojeimy; Domenico Rubello; Irène J Virgolini; Stefano Fanti; Sona Balogova; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Karel Pacak Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236