The Value of F-18 FDG PET for Planning Treatment and Detecting Recurrence in Malignant Salivary Gland Tumors: Comparison with Conventional Imaging Studies
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsSalivary gland neoplasm F-18 FDG PET/CT Cervical lymph nodes Staging
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 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
- 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
- 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.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