N Pyatigorskaya1,2, R De Laroche3, G Bera4, A Giron5, C Bertolus6,7, G Herve8, E Chambenois9, S Bergeret4, D Dormont9,2, M Amor-Sahli9, A Kas4,5. 1. From Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris Neuroradiology Department (N.P., E.C., D.D., M.A.-S.) nadya.pyatigorskaya@gmail.com. 2. Sorbonne University (N.P., D.D.), Pierre and Marie Faculty of Medicine, Paris, France. 3. Nuclear Medicine Department (R.D.L.), Morvan Hospital, Brest, France. 4. Nuclear Medicine Department (G.B., S.B., A.K.), Pitié-Salpêtrière-Charles Foix Hospital, Paris, France. 5. Sorbonne University (A.G., A.K.), Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale, Paris, France. 6. Sorbonne University, Maxillo-Facial Surgery Department (C.B.). 7. CIMI Sorbonne University UPMC (C.B.), Paris, France. 8. Pathology Department (G.H.), Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 9. From Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris Neuroradiology Department (N.P., E.C., D.D., M.A.-S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PET/MRI with 18F-FDG has demonstrated the advantages of simultaneous PET and MR imaging in head and neck cancer imaging, MRI allowing excellent soft-tissue contrast, while PET provides metabolic information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of gadolinium contrast-enhanced sequences in the tumor delineation of head and neck cancers on 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous head and neck 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging staging or restaging followed by surgery were retrospectively included. Local tumor invasion and lymph node extension were assessed in 45 head and neck anatomic regions using 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging by 2 rater groups (each one including a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician). Two reading sessions were performed, one without contrast-enhanced sequences (using only T1WI, T2WI, and PET images) and a second with additional T1WI postcontrast sequences. The results were compared with the detailed histopathologic analysis, used as reference standard. The κ concordance coefficient between the reading sessions and sensitivity and specificity for each region were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. There was excellent agreement between the contrast-free and postgadolinium reading sessions in delineating precise tumor extension in the 45 anatomic regions studied (Cohen κ = 0.96, 95% CI = [0.94-0.97], P < .001). The diagnostic accuracy did not differ between contrast-free and postgadolinium reading sessions, being 0.97 for both groups and both reading sessions. For the 2 rater groups, there was good sensitivity for both contrast-free (0.83 and 0.85) and postgadolinium reading sessions (0.88 and 0.90, respectively). Moreover, there was excellent specificity (0.98) for both groups and reading sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Gadolinium chelate contrast administration showed no added value for accurate characterization of head and neck primary tumor extension and could possibly be avoided in the PET/MR imaging head and neck workflow.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PET/MRI with 18F-FDG has demonstrated the advantages of simultaneous PET and MR imaging in head and neck cancer imaging, MRI allowing excellent soft-tissue contrast, while PET provides metabolic information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of gadolinium contrast-enhanced sequences in the tumor delineation of head and neck cancers on 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous head and neck 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging staging or restaging followed by surgery were retrospectively included. Local tumor invasion and lymph node extension were assessed in 45 head and neck anatomic regions using 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging by 2 rater groups (each one including a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician). Two reading sessions were performed, one without contrast-enhanced sequences (using only T1WI, T2WI, and PET images) and a second with additional T1WI postcontrast sequences. The results were compared with the detailed histopathologic analysis, used as reference standard. The κ concordance coefficient between the reading sessions and sensitivity and specificity for each region were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. There was excellent agreement between the contrast-free and postgadolinium reading sessions in delineating precise tumor extension in the 45 anatomic regions studied (Cohen κ = 0.96, 95% CI = [0.94-0.97], P < .001). The diagnostic accuracy did not differ between contrast-free and postgadolinium reading sessions, being 0.97 for both groups and both reading sessions. For the 2 rater groups, there was good sensitivity for both contrast-free (0.83 and 0.85) and postgadolinium reading sessions (0.88 and 0.90, respectively). Moreover, there was excellent specificity (0.98) for both groups and reading sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Gadolinium chelate contrast administration showed no added value for accurate characterization of head and neck primary tumor extension and could possibly be avoided in the PET/MR imaging head and neck workflow.
Authors: Christopher Klenk; Rakhee Gawande; Vy Thao Tran; Jennifer Trinh Leung; Kevin Chi; Daniel Owen; Sandra Luna-Fineman; Kathleen M Sakamoto; Alex McMillan; Andy Quon; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Robert J McDonald; Jennifer S McDonald; David F Kallmes; Mark E Jentoft; David L Murray; Kent R Thielen; Eric E Williamson; Laurence J Eckel Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marcelo A Queiroz; Martin Hüllner; Felix Kuhn; Gerhardt Huber; Christian Meerwein; Spyros Kollias; Gustav von Schulthess; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Soo Jin Lee; Hyo Jung Seo; Gi Jeong Cheon; Ji Hoon Kim; E Edmund Kim; Keon Wook Kang; Jin Chul Paeng; June-Key Chung; Dong Soo Lee Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-06
Authors: Arthur Varoquaux; Olivier Rager; Antoine Poncet; Bénédicte M A Delattre; Osman Ratib; Christoph D Becker; Pavel Dulguerov; Nicolas Dulguerov; Habib Zaidi; Minerva Becker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: L D Patel; K Bridgham; J Ciriello; R Almardawi; J Leon; J Hostetter; S Yazbek; P Raghavan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825