Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, Volume 51, Issue 10, pp 677–686 | Cite as

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT to evaluate tumor, nodal disease, and gross tumor volume of oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer: comparison with MR imaging and validation with surgical specimen

  • Oliver Seitz
  • Nicole Chambron-Pinho
  • Markus Middendorp
  • Rober Sader
  • Martin Mack
  • Thomas J. Vogl
  • Sotirios Bisdas
Head and Neck Radiology

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of adding combined 18F-PET/CT to MRI for T and N staging of the oral and oropharyngeal cancer and calculation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) having histopathology as reference standard.

Methods

PET/CT and MRI were performed in 66 patients with suspected oral and oropharyngeal cancer (41 primary tumors/25 recurrent tumors) and nodal disease (114 nodes). Statistical analysis included the McNemar test, sensitivity, specificity for the diagnostic modalities as well as regression analysis, and Bland–Altman graphs for calculated tumor volumes.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities compared to pathological findings regarding detection of disease (P ≥ 0.72). The sensitivity/specificity for tumor detection were 100/80% and 96.72/60% for MRI and PET/CT, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity for nodal metastases were 88.46/75% and 83.81/73.91% for MRI and PET/CT, respectively. In 18% of cases, the MRI-based T staging resulted in an overestimation of the pathologic tumor stage. The corresponding rate for PET/CT was 22%. Regarding the treated necks, both modalities showed 100% sensitivity for detection of the recurrent lesions. In necks with histologically N0 staging, MRI and PET/CT gave 22% and 26% false positive findings, respectively. The mean tumor volume in the pathologic specimen was 16.6 ± 18.6 ml, the mean volume derived by the MR imaging was 17.6 ± 19.1 ml while the estimated by PET/CT volume was 18.8 ± 18.1 ml (P ≤ 0.007 between the three methods). The Bland–Altman analysis showed a better agreement between PET/CT and MRI.

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in the local staging of oral cancer is not superior to MRI.

Keywords

PET/CT MRI Oral cancer Oropharynx Gross tumor volume 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Dr. Marc Harth for his help in collecting the MRI and PET-CT patient data.

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Haddad RI, Shin DM (2008) Recent advances in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 359:1143–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Domenge C et al (2000) Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy on Head and Neck Cancer. Lancet 355:949–955PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourhis J, Calais G, Lapeyre M et al (2004) Concomitant radiochemotherapy or accelerated radiotherapy: analysis of two randomized trials of the French head and neck cancer group (GORTEC). Semin Oncol 31:822–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim MR, Roh JL, Kim JS et al (2007) Utility of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the preoperative staging of squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:633–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abgral R, Querellou S, Potard G et al (2009) Does 18F-FDG PET/CT improve the detection of posttreatment recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in patients negative for disease on clinical follow-up? J Nucl Med 50:24–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ng SH, Yen TC, Liao CT et al (2005) 18F-FDG PET and CT/MRI in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of 124 patients with histologic correlation. J Nucl Med 46:1136–1143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nahmias C, Lemmens C, Faul D et al (2008) Does reducing CT artifacts from dental implants influence the PET interpretation in PET/CT studies of oral cancer and head and neck cancer? J Nucl Med 49:1047–1052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baek CH, Chung MK, Son YI et al (2008) Tumor volume assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with oral cavity cancer with dental artifacts on CT or MR images. J Nucl Med 49:1422–1428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newbold KL, Partridge M, Cook G et al (2008) Evaluation of the role of 18FDG-PET/CT in radiotherapy target definition in patients with head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 47:1229–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vernon MR, Maheshwari M, Schultz CJ et al (2008) Clinical outcomes of patients receiving integrated PET/CT-guided radiotherapy for head and neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:678–684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee N, Xia P, Fischbein NJ et al (2003) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: the UCSF experience focusing on target volume delineation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:49–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A et al (2005) Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-Small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 46:1342–1348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murakami R, Uozumi H, Hirai T et al (2007) Impact of FDG-PET/CT imaging on nodal staging for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:377–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vogl T, Bisdas S (2007) Lymph node staging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 18:303–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleming AJ Jr, Smith SP Jr, Paul CM et al (2007) Impact of [18F]-2-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography on previously untreated head and neck cancer patients. Laryngoscope 117:1173–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greco C, Nehmeh SA, Schoder H et al (2008) Evaluation of different methods of 18F-FDG-PET target volume delineation in the radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 31:439–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B et al (2004) Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology 233:93–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roh JL, Yeo NK, Kim JS et al (2007) Utility of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in the preoperative staging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 43:887–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pentenero M, Cistaro A, Brusa M et al (2008) Accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for staging of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 30:1488–1496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoon DY, Hwang HS, Chang SK et al (2009) CT, MR, US, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and their combined use for the assessment of cervical lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Eur Radiol 19:634–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schoder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M et al (2004) Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 231:65–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodwin WJ Jr (2000) Salvage surgery for patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: when do the ends justify the means? Laryngoscope 110:1–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ong SC, Schoder H, Lee NY et al (2008) Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing the neck after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregional advanced head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 49:532–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andrade RS, Heron DE, Degirmenci B et al (2006) Posttreatment assessment of response using FDG-PET/CT for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:1315–1322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kubota K, Yokoyama J, Yamaguchi K et al (2004) FDG-PET delayed imaging for the detection of head and neck cancer recurrence after radio-chemotherapy: comparison with MRI/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:590–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zbaren P, Weidner S, Thoeny HC (2008) Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinomas after (chemo)radiotherapy: a diagnostic dilemma. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16:147–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bisdas S, Baghi M, Huebner F et al (2007) In vivo proton MR spectroscopy of primary tumours, nodal and recurrent disease of the extracranial head and neck. Eur Radiol 17:251–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fakhry N, Lussato D, Jacob T et al (2007) Comparison between PET and PET/CT in recurrent head and neck cancer and clinical implications. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:531–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong RJ, Lin DT, Schoder H et al (2002) Diagnostic and prognostic value of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 20:4199–4208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Bondt RB, Nelemans PJ, Hofman PA et al (2007) Detection of lymph node metastases in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis comparing US, USgFNAC, CT and MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 64:266–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kyzas PA, Evangelou E, Denaxa-Kyza D et al (2008) 18F-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 100:712–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stuckensen T, Kovacs AF, Adams S et al (2000) Staging of the neck in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas: a prospective comparison of PET, ultrasound, CT and MRI. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 28:319–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schoder H, Carlson DL, Kraus DH et al (2006) 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting nodal metastases in patients with oral cancer staged N0 by clinical examination and CT/MRI. J Nucl Med 47:755–762PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Seitz
    • 1
  • Nicole Chambron-Pinho
    • 1
  • Markus Middendorp
    • 2
  • Rober Sader
    • 1
  • Martin Mack
    • 3
  • Thomas J. Vogl
    • 3
  • Sotirios Bisdas
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Oromaxillofacial SurgeryJW Goethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineJW Goethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyJW Goethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  4. 4.Department of NeuroradiologyEberhard Karls UniversityTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations