18F-FDG PET or PET-CT to evaluate prognosis for head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis
- First Online:
- 440 Downloads
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of standard uptake value (SUV) from serial Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) in patients with head and neck cancer.
We searched for articles limited to head and neck cancer, dealt with the impact of SUV on survival and published in English. The endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and local control (LC). Two reviewers extracted data independently.
Thirty-five studies were identified; of which, 26 studies involving 1,415 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pooled survival data suggested better DFS, OS, and LC in patients with low SUV of pre-treatment, and the odds ratio (OR) was 0.23, 0.24, and 0.27, respectively. Patients having tumors with low SUV of post-treatment also had significantly better DFS (OR = 0.17) and OS (OR = 0.28) than those with high SUV.
The present meta-analysis showed that 18F-FDG uptake, as measured by the SUV before treatment and metabolic response after treatment, are valuable for predicting long-term survival in head and neck cancer. High 18F-FDG uptake may be useful for identifying patients requiring more aggressive treatment.
Keywords18F-FDG Head and neck cancer Standard uptake value Prognosis Meta-analysis
- Kao CH, Shiau YC, Shen YY et al (2002) Detection of recurrent or persistent nasopharyngeal carcinomas after radiotherapy with technetium-99 m methoxyisobutylisonitrile single photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography: comparison with 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 94:1981–1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liao CT, Chang JT, Wang HM et al (2009) Pretreatment primary tumor SUVmax measured by FDG-PET and pathologic tumor depth predict for poor outcomes in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and pathologically positive lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73(3):764–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar