Louise Madeleine Risør1, Annika Loft2, Anne Kiil Berthelsen2, Frederik Cornelius Loft2, Andreas Ruhvald Madsen2, Ivan Richter Vogelius3, Andreas Kjær2, Jeppe Friborg3. 1. Department of Clinical Physiology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine and PET and Cluster for Molecular Imaging, Rigshospitalet and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. louise.madeleine.risoer@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Physiology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine and PET and Cluster for Molecular Imaging, Rigshospitalet and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the time-dependent diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in the follow-up of head and neck cancer (HNC) and to assess the prognostic value of PET-negative and PET-inconclusive findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 279 HNC patients primarily treated with radiotherapy from 2006 to 2012 were included. The follow-up PET/CT scans were categorized as benign, malignant or inconclusive by a radiologist and a nuclear physician. The reference standard was histology or verification by progression on imaging. The outcome measures were positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and the PET/CT scans were grouped according to time since treatment and compared. An analysis of the diagnostic accuracy was performed with the inconclusive results categorized as both benign and malignant to create ranges for the diagnostic performance. RESULTS: The proportion of inconclusive results declined from 26 to 8.4% and 0% after 0-3, 3-6 and 12-24 months post-treatment. The ranges for diagnostic performance after 0-3, 3-6, 6-12, 12-24 months and overall post-treatment were: PPV 27.3-50, 48.4-58.3, 71.4-100, 100 and 50.5-65.7 and NPV 75.0-84.6, 95.1-96.8, 92.9-100, 100 and 94.8-96.7. Time to recurrence was not statistically different after a PET-negative or a PET-inconclusive result. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of a surveillance PET/CT scan after HNC improves with time since treatment, and is very reliable after 1 year. However, the NPV is already high 3 months post-treatment supporting the use of PET/CT for early evaluation of head and neck cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To examine the time-dependent diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in the follow-up of head and neck cancer (HNC) and to assess the prognostic value of PET-negative and PET-inconclusive findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 279 HNCpatients primarily treated with radiotherapy from 2006 to 2012 were included. The follow-up PET/CT scans were categorized as benign, malignant or inconclusive by a radiologist and a nuclear physician. The reference standard was histology or verification by progression on imaging. The outcome measures were positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and the PET/CT scans were grouped according to time since treatment and compared. An analysis of the diagnostic accuracy was performed with the inconclusive results categorized as both benign and malignant to create ranges for the diagnostic performance. RESULTS: The proportion of inconclusive results declined from 26 to 8.4% and 0% after 0-3, 3-6 and 12-24 months post-treatment. The ranges for diagnostic performance after 0-3, 3-6, 6-12, 12-24 months and overall post-treatment were: PPV 27.3-50, 48.4-58.3, 71.4-100, 100 and 50.5-65.7 and NPV 75.0-84.6, 95.1-96.8, 92.9-100, 100 and 94.8-96.7. Time to recurrence was not statistically different after a PET-negative or a PET-inconclusive result. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of a surveillance PET/CT scan after HNC improves with time since treatment, and is very reliable after 1 year. However, the NPV is already high 3 months post-treatment supporting the use of PET/CT for early evaluation of head and neck cancerpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
FDG-PET/CT; Follow-up; Head and neck cancer; Nuclear medicine; Oncology; Radiotherapy; Surveillance
Authors: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Mehdi Taghipour; Rubina Ahmad; Carole Fakhry; Ana P Kiess; Christine H Chung; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C J Flynn; N Khaouam; S Gardner; K Higgins; D Enepekides; J Balogh; R MacKenzie; S Singh; J Davidson; I Poon Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Tim Van den Wyngaert; Nils Helsen; Laurens Carp; Sara Hakim; Michel J Martens; Isabel Hutsebaut; Philip R Debruyne; Annelies L M Maes; Joost van Dinther; Carl G Van Laer; Otto S Hoekstra; Remco De Bree; Sabine A E Meersschout; Olivier Lenssen; Jan B Vermorken; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Sigrid Stroobants Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C H Terhaard; G J Hordijk; P van den Broek; P C de Jong; G B Snow; F J Hilgers; B A Annyas; R E Tjho-Heslinga; J M de Jong Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci Date: 1992-10
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Charles Marcus; Joseph Califano; Carole Fakhry; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Frederik Soffers; Nils Helsen; Tim Van den Wyngaert; Laurens Carp; Otto S Hoekstra; Laurence Goethals; Michel Martens; Kristof Deben; Karoline Spaepen; Remco De Bree; Frank De Geeter; G J C Zwezerijnen; Carl Van Laer; Alex Maes; Olivier Lenssen; Sigrid Stroobants Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Julian Künzel; Moritz Brandenstein; Florian Zeman; Luisa Symeou; Natascha Platz Batista da Silva; Ernst Michael Jung Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-30