Performance of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT as a posttreatment surveillance tool for sinonasal malignancies

  • Kerem Ozturk
  • Mehmet Gencturk
  • Emiro Caicedo-Granados
  • Faqian Li
  • Zuzan Cayci
Head & Neck



To determine the diagnostic utility of posttreatment surveillance whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting local tumor recurrence (R), regional lymph-node metastasis (LM), and distant metastasis (DM) in asymptomatic sinonasal cancer patients.


Eighty consecutive patients (53 men, 27 women; mean age, 60 years; range, 28–92 years) who had undergone 197 posttreatment whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations for sinonasal malignancies between January 2009 and August 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. 18F-FDG PET/CT findings were categorized as positive or negative for R, LM, and DM, separately. Outcomes of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were compared with the final diagnosis confirmed by histological analysis or follow-up period for a minimum 12 months. The diagnostic accuracy of scans was calculated for each site using contingency tables. Impact on the management of 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations was additionally evaluated.


18F-FDG PET/CT scans identified 37/44 of local recurrences, 21/23 of LMs, and 30/37 of DMs. For local recurrence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 84% (68–97%), 95% (80–100%), 84% (68–97%), and 95% (80–100%), respectively. For LM, the respective values were 91% (75–100%), 99% (83–100%), 91% (75–100%), and 99% (83–100%). For DM, the values were 81% (64–97%), 99% (85–100%), 97% (81–100%), and 96% (81–100%), respectively. 18F-FDG PET/CT accounted for a change in management of 85% patients with recurrences.


Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT is a suitable surveillance tool for sinonasal malignancies in detecting locoregional and distant recurrences in asymptomatic patients without any evidence of recurrence on regular follow-up and endoscopy during the posttreatment period.


18F-FDG PET/CT Sinonasal malignancies Surveillance Recurrence Posttreatment 



There are no sources of funding for this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors of this manuscript, Kerem Ozturk, Mehmet Gencturk, Emiro Caicedo-Granados, Faqian Li, Zuzan Cayci declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1983 revised Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Khademi B, Moradi A, Hoseini S et al (2009) Malignant neoplasms of the sinonasal tract: report of 71 patients and literature review and analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 13:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuijpens JHL, Louwman MW, Peters R et al (2012) Trends in sinonasal cancer in The Netherlands: more squamous cell cancer, less adenocarcinoma: a population-based study 1973–2009. Eur J Cancer 48:2369–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guntinas-Lichius O, Kreppel M, Stuetzer H et al (2007) Single modality and multimodality treatment of nasal and paranasal sinuses cancer: a single institution experience of 229 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Llorente JL, López F, Suárez C et al (2014) Sinonasal carcinoma: clinical, pathological, genetic and therapeutic advances. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11:460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gal TJ, Silver N, Huang B (2011) Demographics and treatment trends in sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Laryngoscope 121:2026–2033Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turner JH, Reh DD (2012) Incidence and survival in patients with sinonasal cancer: a historical analysis of population-based data. Head Neck 34:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanna E, DeMonte F, Ibrahim S et al (2009) Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers with and without craniotomy: oncologic results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135:1219–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robbins KT, Ferlito A, Silver CE et al (2011) Contemporary management of sinonasal cancer. Head Neck 33:1352–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marcus C, Ciarallo A, Tahari AK et al (2014) Head and neck PET/CT: therapy response interpretation criteria (Hopkins criteria)—interreader reliability, accuracy, and survival outcomes. J Nucl Med 55:1411–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu G-Z, Guan D-J, He Z-Y (2011) 18FDG-PET/CT for detecting distant metastases and second primary cancers in patients with head and neck cancer. A meta-analysis. Oral Oncol 47:560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paidpally V, Chirindel A, Lam S et al (2012) FDG-PET/CT imaging biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Imaging Med 4:633–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Subramaniam R, Truong M, Peller P et al (2010) Fluorodeoxyglucose–positron-emission tomography imaging of head and neck squamous cell cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim G, Kim YS, Han EJ et al (2011) FDG-PET/CT as prognostic factor and surveillance tool for postoperative radiation recurrence in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 29:243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Purohit BS, Ailianou A, Dulguerov N et al (2014) FDG-PET/CT pitfalls in oncological head and neck imaging. Insights Imaging 5:585–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:2083–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamarre ED, Batra PS, Lorenz RR et al (2012) Role of positron emission tomography in management of sinonasal neoplasms—a single institution’s experience. Am J Otolaryngol 33:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tajudeen BA, Arshi A, Suh JD et al (2015) Esthesioneuroblastoma: an update on the UCLA experience, 2002–2013. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 76:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maroldi R, Ravanelli M, Farina D et al (2015) Post-treatment evaluation of paranasal sinuses after treatment of sinonasal neoplasms. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 25:667–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Digonnet A, Hamoir M, Andry G et al (2013) Post-therapeutic surveillance strategies in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:1569–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franchi A, Miligi L, Palomba A et al (2011) Sinonasal carcinomas: recent advances in molecular and phenotypic characterization and their clinical implications. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 79:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mehanna H, Wong W-L, McConkey CC et al (2016) PET-CT surveillance versus neck dissection in advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 374:1444–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramakrishnan VR, Lee JY, O’Malley BW et al (2013) 18-FDG-PET in the initial staging of sinonasal malignancy. Laryngoscope 123:2962–2966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gil Z, Even-Sapir E, Margalit N et al (2007) Integrated PET/CT system for staging and surveillance of skull base tumors. Head Neck 29:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wild D, Eyrich GK, Ciernik IF et al (2006) In-line (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with carcinoma of the sinus/nasal area and orbit. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khalili S, Worrall DM, Brooks S et al (2016) Endoscopy versus imaging: analysis of surveillance methods in sinonasal malignancy. Head Neck 38:1229–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Workman AD, Glicksman JT, Parasher AK et al (2017) (18)FDG PET/CT in routine surveillance of asymptomatic patients following treatment of sinonasal neoplasms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 157:1068–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ozturk K, Gawande R, Gencturk M et al (2018) Imaging features of sinonasal tumors on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging including diffusion weighted imaging: a pictorial review. Clin Imaging 51:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kei PL, Vikram R, Yeung HW et al (2010) Incidental finding of focal FDG uptake in the bowel during PET/CT: CT features and correlation with histopathologic results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:W401–W406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerem Ozturk
    • 1
  • Mehmet Gencturk
    • 1
  • Emiro Caicedo-Granados
    • 2
  • Faqian Li
    • 3
  • Zuzan Cayci
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Minnesota Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of Minnesota Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineUniversity of Minnesota Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations