Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T01:21:19.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospective, blinded trial of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography positron emission tomography in staging primary and recurrent cancer of the head and neck

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2010

J P O'Neill ,
M Moynagh ,
E Kavanagh  and
T O'Dwyer
J P O'Neill*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The Mater Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
M Moynagh
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Mater Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
E Kavanagh
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Mater Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
T O'Dwyer
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The Mater Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
*
Address for correspondence: Mr James Paul O'Neill, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The Mater Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. E-mail: joneill@rcsi.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To compare the use of computed tomography – positron emission tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of head and neck cancer.

Patients and methods:

From January to July 2009, 15 consecutive head and neck cancer patients (11 men and four women; mean age 59 years; age range 19 to 81 years) underwent computed tomography – positron emission tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for pre-therapeutic evaluation. All scans were staged, as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour–node–metastasis classification, by two blinded consultant radiologists, in two sittings. Diagnoses were confirmed by histopathological examination of endoscopic biopsies, and in some cases whole surgical specimens.

Results:

Tumour staging showed a 74 per cent concordance, node staging an 80 per cent concordance and metastasis staging a 100 per cent concordance, comparing the two imaging modalities.

Conclusion:

This study found radiological staging discordance between the two imaging modalities. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is an emerging staging modality with superior visualisation of metastatic disease, which does not require exposure to ionising radiation.

Keywords

Head And Neck NeoplasmsTumour MetastasisComputerized TomographyPositron Emission TomographyMagnetic Resonance Imaging
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 12 , December 2010 , pp. 1274 - 1277
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Schmidt, GP, Reiser, MF, Baur-Melnyk, A. Whole-body MRI for the staging and follow-up of patients with metastasis. Eur J Radiol 2009;70:393–400Google Scholar
2Garcia, C, Flamen, P. Role of positron emission tomography in the management of head and neck cancer in the molecular therapy era. Curr Opin Oncol 2008;20:275–9Google Scholar
3Chen, ZW, Zhu, LJ, Hou, QY, Wang, QP, Jiang, S, Feng, H. Clinical application of positron-emission tomography for the identification of cervical nodal metastases of head and neck cancer compared with CT or MRI and clinical palpation [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008;43:705–8Google ScholarPubMed
4Ohno, Y, Nogami, M, Takenaka, D, Yoshikawa, T, Yoshimura, M, Kotani, Y et al. Whole body MR imaging vs. FDG-PET: comparison of accuracy of M-stage diagnosis for lung cancer patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:498–509Google Scholar
5Yi, C, Shin, K, Lee, K. Non small cell lung cancer staging: efficacy comparison of integrated PET-CT versus 3T whole-body MR imaging. Radiology 2008;248:632–42Google Scholar
6Schmidt, GP, Baur-Melnyk, A, Herzog, P. High resolution whole body MRI tumor staging with the use of parallel imaging versus dual modality PET-CT: experience of a 32-channel system. Invest Radiology 2005;40:743–53Google Scholar
7American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn.Chicago: Springer, 2009Google Scholar
8Balogova, S, Perie, S, Kerrou, K, Grahek, D, Montravers, F, Angleard, B et al. Prospective comparison of FDG and FET PET/CT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2008;10:364–73Google Scholar
9Antoch, G, Vogt, FM, Freudenberg, LS. Whole-body dual modality PET-CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 2003;290:3199–206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Ong, SC, Schoder, H, Lee, NY, Patel, SG, Carlson, D, Fury, M et al. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET-CT in assessing the neck after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregional advanced head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 2008;49:532–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed