Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T11:46:42.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predictive value of positron emission tomography – computed tomography image fusion in the diagnosis of head and neck cancer: does it really improve staging and management?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2012

C de Casso ,
V Visvanathan ,
A Soni-Jaiswall ,
T Kane  and
A Nigam
C de Casso*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Manchester, UK
V Visvanathan
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Manchester, UK
A Soni-Jaiswall
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Manchester, UK
T Kane
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Manchester, UK
A Nigam
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Manchester, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Ms C de Casso, 432 Norris Road, Sale, Manchester M33 2RE, UK. E-mail: cdecasso@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims:

To determine (1) the accuracy of positron emission tomography – computed tomography in the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, (2) the learning curve involved, and (3) whether its use alters patient management.

Materials and methods:

A retrospective study including 80 patients with head and neck cancer who underwent positron emission tomography – computed tomography image fusion at Blackpool Victoria Hospital.

Results:

Fifty-three patients underwent positron emission tomography – computed tomography for staging (32 for detection of a primary tumour and 21 for detection of distant metastasis) and 27 for detection of loco-regional recurrence. Ten primary tumours and 20 recurrences were accurately diagnosed by this method. Eighteen patients had their tumour stage and management modified as a result of this method of imaging. The effect of the learning curve resulted in better true positive detection rates, one year after introduction (81 versus 61 per cent). The sensitivity and specificity of this method in detecting head and neck cancer were 70 and 42 per cent, respectively, whereas those of conventional imaging were 73 and 51 per cent, respectively.

Conclusion:

Compared with magnetic resonance imaging, the benefits of positron emission tomography – computed tomography may be limited to diagnosis of recurrence, as it is less hindered by tissue fibrosis, radiotherapy-related oedema, scarring and inflammation.

Keywords

CarcinomaDiagnosisPositron Emission TomographyTomography, Computed, X-Ray

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 3 , March 2012 , pp. 295 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2012

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Wong, RJ, Lin, DT, Schoder, H, Patel, SG, Gonen, M, Wolden, S et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4199–208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Fukui, MB, Blodgett, TD, Meltzer, CC. PET/CT imaging in recurrent head and neck cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2003;24:157–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Hanasono, MM, Kunda, LD, Segall, GM, Ku, GH, Terris, DJ. Uses and limitations of FDG positron emission tomography in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 1999;109:880–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Gordin, A, Golz, A, Keidar, Z, Daitzchman, M, Bar-Shalom, R, Israel, O. The role of PET/CT imaging in head and neck malignant conditions: impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:130–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Sigg, MB, Steinert, H, Gratz, K, Hugenin, P, Stoeckli, S, Eyrich, GK. Staging of head and neck tumours: fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography compared with physical examination and conventional imaging modalities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1022–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Curtin, H, Ishwararn, H, Mancuso, AA, Dalley, RW, Caudry, DJ, McNeill, BJ. Comparison of CT and MRI imaging in staging of neck metastases. Radiology 1998;207:123–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Paulus, P, Sambon, A, Vivegnis, D, Hustinx, R, Moreau, P, Collignon, J et al. 18 FDG-PET for the assessment of primary head and neck tumours: clinical, computed tomography and histopathological correlation in 38 patients. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1578–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Kyzas, PA, Evangelou, E, Denaxa-Kyza, D, Ioannidis, JP. 18 Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate cervical node metastases in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:712–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Stokkel, MP, ten Broek, FW, van Rijk, PP. Preoperative assessment of cervical lymph nodes in head and neck cancer with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose using a dual-head coincidence camera: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:499–503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Szakall, S, Esik, O, Bajzik, G, Repa, I, Dabasi, G, Sinkovics, I et al. 18F-FDG PET detection of lymph node metastasis in medullary thyroid carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2002;43:66–71Google ScholarPubMed
11Adams, S, Baum, P, Stuckensen, T, Bitter, K, Hör, G. Prospective comparison of 18 F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:1255–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Martin, RCW, Fulham, M, Shannon, KF, Hughes, C, Milross, C, Tin, MM et al. Accuracy of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for mucosal head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2009;31:244–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Weber, WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 2005;46:983–95Google ScholarPubMed
14Wieder, HA, Brucher, BL, Zimmermann, F, Becker, K, Lordick, F, Beer, A et al. Time course of tumour metabolic activity during chemoradiotherapy of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:900–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Lan, XL, Zhang, YX, Wu, ZJ, Jia, Q, Wei, H, Gao, ZR. The value of dual time point (18)F-FDG PET imaging for the differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Clin Radiol 2008;63:756–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Strobel, K, Haerle, SK, Stoeckli, SJ, Schrank, M, Soyka, JD, Veit-Haibach, P et al. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) – detection of synchronous primaries with 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med 2009;36:919–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar