Diagnostic evaluation of malignant head and neck cancer by F-18-FDG PET compared to CT/MRI

被引:0
作者
Nowak, B
Di Martino, E
Jänicke, S
Cremerius, U
Adam, G
Zimny, M
Reinartz, P
Büll, U
机构
[1] Aachen Univ Technol Hosp, Dept Nucl Med, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
[2] Aachen Univ Technol Hosp, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Plast Head & Neck Surg, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
[3] Aachen Univ Technol Hosp, Dept Oral Maxillofacial & Facial Plast Surg, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
[4] Aachen Univ Technol Hosp, Dept Diagnost Radiol, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
关键词
head and neck cancer; F-18-FDG PET; computerized tomography; magnetic resonance imaging; grading;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Aim: Evaluation of F-18-FDG PET in comparison to CT/MRI as diagnostic tool in primary and recurrent head and neck cancer. Methods: 78 F-18-FDG PET studies were performed in 71 patients with known or suspected primary (n=48) or recurrent (n=30) head and neck cancer and compared to CT (n=75) or MRI investigations (n=3) concerning detection of the primary or recurrent tumor and detection of regional lymph node metastases in the ipsilateral and contralateral neck sides. Glucose uptake (SUV) of PET findings was correlated to tumor location, grading and dignity of the lesion. Results: Sensitivity and specificity for PET in detection of primary tumors were 87%* and 67%, respectively (CT/MRI 67%* and 44%) (*p<0.05), in detection of local recurrence 86% and 75%, respectively (CT/MRI 57% and 92%), in detection of necks affected by lymph node metastases 80% and 92%, respectively (CT/MRI 80% and 84%). Laryngeal, buccal (cheek) and salivary gland tumors had significant lower glucose uptake (SUV) when compared to tumors of the hypopharynx (p<0.05). G1-tumors (mean SUV 4.26) had significant (p<0.05) lower glucose uptake when compared to G2- a nd GS-tumors (mean SUV 7.73 and 8.19, respectively). Mean SUV of malignant PET findings (7.88) was significant (p<0.05) higher than mean SUV of benign PET findings (5.70). However, a SUV threshold to improve diagnostic accuracy could not be defined. Conclusion: F-18-FDG PET is significantly more accurate than CT/MRI for detection of head and neck cancer. Both methods are valuable for detection of cervical lymph node metastases Glucose uptake shows correlation to histological grading. A quantitative SUV analysis does not improve diagnostic accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:312 / 318
页数:7
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   Metastatic head and neck cancer: Role and usefulness of FDG PET in locating occult primary tumors [J].
Aassar, OS ;
Fischbein, NJ ;
Caputo, GR ;
Kaplan, MJ ;
Price, DC ;
Singer, MI ;
Dillon, WP ;
Hawkins, RA .
RADIOLOGY, 1999, 210 (01) :177-181
[2]   Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer [J].
Adams, S ;
Baum, RP ;
Stuckensen, T ;
Bitter, K ;
Hör, G .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 1998, 25 (09) :1255-1260
[3]   Recurrence of head and neck cancer after surgery or irradiation: Prospective comparison of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose PET and MR imaging diagnoses [J].
Anzai, Y ;
Carroll, WR ;
Quint, DJ ;
Bradford, CR ;
Minoshima, S ;
Wolf, GT ;
Wahl, RL .
RADIOLOGY, 1996, 200 (01) :135-141
[4]  
BAILET JW, 1992, LARYNGOSCOPE, V102, P281
[5]   THE USE OF POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY FOR EARLY DETECTION OF RECURRENT HEAD AND NECK SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA IN POSTRADIOTHERAPY PATIENTS [J].
BAILET, JW ;
SERCARZ, JA ;
ABEMAYOR, E ;
ANZAI, Y ;
LUFKIN, RB ;
HOH, CK .
LARYNGOSCOPE, 1995, 105 (02) :135-139
[6]   The role of FDG-PET in the preoperative assessment of N-staging in head and neck cancer [J].
Benchaou, M ;
Lehmann, W ;
Slosman, DO ;
Becker, M ;
Lemoine, R ;
Rufenacht, D ;
Donath, A .
ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA, 1996, 116 (02) :332-335
[7]  
BRAAMS JW, 1995, J NUCL MED, V36, P211
[8]   Detection of unknown primary head and neck tumors by positron emission tomography [J].
Braams, JW ;
Pruim, J ;
Kole, AC ;
Nikkels, PGJ ;
Vaalburg, W ;
Vermey, A ;
Roodenburg, JLN .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1997, 26 (02) :112-115
[9]  
CREMERIUS U, 1994, NUKLEARMED, V33, P144
[10]  
DICHIRO G, 1986, INVEST RADIOL, V22, P360