Advertisement

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 242–248 | Cite as

The Value of F-18 FDG PET for Planning Treatment and Detecting Recurrence in Malignant Salivary Gland Tumors: Comparison with Conventional Imaging Studies

  • Hye Lim Park
  • Ie Ryung YooEmail author
  • Narae Lee
  • Hyukjin Yoon
  • Eun Kyoung Choi
  • Hyun Su Choi
  • Sung Hoon Kim
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the value of F-18 FDG PET/CT for detecting cervical lymph node (LN) metastasis and recurrence, as well as planning treatment, and to compare the accuracy of PET/CT with conventional imaging studies (CIS) in patients with malignant salivary gland tumor (SGT).

Methods

Staging and follow-up PET/CT for SGT were retrospectively reviewed. Enhanced CT and/or MRI of the neck were performed within 1 month of PET/CT. Final diagnosis was based on histology from cervical LN dissection and biopsy or a minimum 6 months of clinical and imaging follow-up. We compared the performance of PET/CT in initial cervical LN staging and recurrence detection with that of CIS.

Results

A total of 184 PET/CT exams of 66 patients were included, and 34 initial staging and 150 surveillance PET/CT exams were performed. The initial cervical LN detection sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 60.9 %, 89.2 %, 84.0 %, 56.0 %, and 91.0 % for visual analysis on PET/CT, 39.1 %, 95.0 %, 84.8 %, 64.3 %, and 87.4 % for semiquantitative analysis on PET/CT, and and 43.5 %, 94.1 %, 84.8 %, 62.5 %, and 88.1 % for CIS. The sensitivity of visual analysis on PET/CT was significantly higher than that of semiquantitative analysis on PET/CT and CIS (p = 0.0009 and 0.0086). In 5 of 34 initial staging patients (14.7 %), the treatment plan was changed from curative surgery to palliative therapy. The performance of follow-up PET/CT showed no significant difference compared with CIS.

Conclusion

PET/CT showed comparable performance with CIS for cervical LNs staging. Initial PET/CT changed treatment plans in 14.7 % of patients. However, PET/CT offered no additional advantage for detecting locoregional recurrence.

Keywords

Salivary gland neoplasm F-18 FDG PET/CT Cervical lymph nodes Staging 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Guzzo M, Locati LD, Prott FJ, Gatta G, McGurk M, Licitra L. Major and minor salivary gland tumors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010;74(2):134–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Robbins SL, Cotran RS Rpbod. Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. 7th ed. ed. Elsevier Saunders; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pfister DG, Ang KK, Brizel DM, Burtness BA, Cmelak AJ, Colevas AD, et al. Head and neck cancers. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw : JNCCN. 2011;9(6):596–650.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Terhaard CH, Lubsen H, Van der Tweel I, Hilgers FJ, Eijkenboom WM, Marres HA, et al. Salivary gland carcinoma: independent prognostic factors for locoregional control, distant metastases, and overall survival: results of the Dutch head and neck oncology cooperative group. Head Neck. 2004;26(8):681–92. discussion 92–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hocwald E, Korkmaz H, Yoo GH, Adsay V, Shibuya TY, Abrams J, et al. Prognostic factors in major salivary gland cancer. Laryngoscope. 2001;111(8):1434–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Otsuka H, Graham MM, Kogame M, Nishitani H. The impact of FDG-PET in the management of patients with salivary gland malignancy. Ann Nucl Med. 2005;19(8):691–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hor G. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(9):1255–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zanation AM, Sutton DK, Couch ME, Weissler MC, Shockley WW, Shores CG. Use, accuracy, and implications for patient management of [18F]-2-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission/computerized tomography for head and neck tumors. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(7):1186–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kresnik E, Mikosch P, Gallowitsch HJ, Kogler D, Wiesser S, Heinisch M, et al. Evaluation of head and neck cancer with 18F-FDG PET: a comparison with conventional methods. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(7):816–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veit-Haibach P, Luczak C, Wanke I, Fischer M, Egelhof T, Beyer T, et al. TNM staging with FDG-PET/CT in patients with primary head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(12):1953–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeong HS, Chung MK, Son YI, Choi JY, Kim HJ, Ko YH, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in management of high-grade salivary gland malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(8):1237–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cermik TF, Mavi A, Acikgoz G, Houseni M, Dadparvar S, Alavi A. FDG PET in detecting primary and recurrent malignant salivary gland tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32(4):286–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Razfar A, Heron DE, Branstetter BFT, Seethala RR, Ferris RL. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography adds to the management of salivary gland malignancies. Laryngoscope. 2010;120(4):734–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsubara R, Kawano S, Chikui T, Kiyosue T, Goto Y, Hirano M, et al. Clinical significance of combined assessment of the maximum standardized uptake value of F-18 FDG PET with nodal size in the diagnosis of cervical lymph node metastasis of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(6):708–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joo YH, Yoo IR, Cho KJ, Park JO, Nam IC, Kim MS. Extracapsular spread in hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Diagnostic value of FDG PET/CT. Head & neck. 2013.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roh JL, Ryu CH, Choi SH, Kim JS, Lee JH, Cho KJ, et al. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET for patients with salivary gland malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(2):240–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim JY, Lee SW, Kim JS, Kim SY, Nam SY, Choi SH, et al. Diagnostic value of neck node status using 18F-FDG PET for salivary duct carcinoma of the major salivary glands. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(6):881–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jeong HS, Baek CH, Son YI, Ki Chung M, Kyung Lee D, Young Choi J, et al. Use of integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT to improve the accuracy of initial cervical nodal evaluation in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2007;29(3):203–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keyes Jr JW, Harkness BA, Greven KM, Williams 3rd DW, Watson Jr NE, McGuirt WF. Salivary gland tumors: pretherapy evaluation with PET. Radiology. 1994;192(1):99–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGuirt WF, Keyes Jr JW, Greven KM, Williams 3rd DW, Watson Jr NE, Cappellari JO. Preoperative identification of benign versus malignant parotid masses: a comparative study including positron emission tomography. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(6):579–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park S, Choi J, Lee E, Yoo J, Cheon M, Cho S, et al. Diagnostic criteria on 18F-FDG PET/CT for differentiating benign from malignant focal hypermetabolic lesions of parotid gland. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46(2):95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bradley PJ. Distant metastases from salivary glands cancer. ORL J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Relat Spec. 2001;63(4):233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mariano FV, da Silva SD, Chulan TC, de Almeida OP, Kowalski LP. Clinicopathological factors are predictors of distant metastasis from major salivary gland carcinomas. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40(5):504–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sathekge M, Maes A, D’Asseler Y, Vorster M, Gongxeka H, Van de Wiele C. Tuberculous lymphadenitis: FDG PET and CT findings in responsive and nonresponsive disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(7):1184–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ito K, Morooka M, Kubota K. Kikuchi disease: 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography of lymph node uptake. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(1):15–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hye Lim Park
    • 1
  • Ie Ryung Yoo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Narae Lee
    • 1
  • Hyukjin Yoon
    • 1
  • Eun Kyoung Choi
    • 1
  • Hyun Su Choi
    • 1
  • Sung Hoon Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations