Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 98–105 | Cite as

Usefulness of Integrated PET/MRI in Head and Neck Cancer: A Preliminary Study

  • Soo Jin Lee
  • Hyo Jung Seo
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
  • Ji Hoon Kim
  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Keon Wook Kang
  • Jin Chul Paeng
  • June-Key Chung
  • Dong Soo Lee
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The new modality of an integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) has recently been introduced but not validated. Our objective was to evaluate clinical performance of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/MRI in patients with head and neck cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted between January 2013 and February 2013. Ten patients (eight men, two women; mean age, 61.4 ± 13.4 years) with histologically proven head and neck tumors were enrolled. Whole-body PET/MRI and regional positron emission tomography (PET) with dedicated MRI were sequentially obtained. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis and contrast enhancement were analyzed. A total of ten whole-body positron emission tomography (PET), ten regional positron emission tomography (PET), ten dedicated MRI and ten regional PET/gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted (Gd)-MRI images were analyzed for initial staging. Two nuclear medicine physicians analyzed positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/MRI with a consensus. One radiologist analyzed dedicated MRI. The primary lesions and number of metastatic lymph nodes analyzed from each image were compared.

Results

Eight patients were diagnosed with head and neck cancer (one tongue cancer, four tonsillar cancers, one nasopharyngeal cancer and two hypopharyngeal cancers) by histological diagnosis. Two benign tumors (pleomorphic adenoma and Warthin tumor) were diagnosed with surgical operation. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) and regional positron emission tomography (PET) attenuated by MRI showed good image quality for the lesion detection. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) and regional positron emission tomography (PET) detected ten primary sites and compensated for a missed lesion on dedicated MRI. A discordant number of suspicious lymph node metastases was noted according to the different images; 22, 16, 39 and 40 in the whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) only, dedicated MR, regional positron emission tomography (PET) only and regional PET/Gd-MRI, respectively. There was no distant metastasis based on analysis of whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) and whole-body PET/Dixon-volume interpolated breathhold examination (VIBE) MRI. Regional PET/Gd-MRI combined with whole-body PET/MRI modified staging in three patients. Lesions of primary tumor and suspicious metastasis were well detected on both value of SUVmax and visual analysis. The regional PET/Gd-MRI combined with whole-body PET/MRI showed convenient clinical staging performance compared with positron emission tomography (PET) and MRI alone.

Conclusion

In this preliminary study, PET attenuated by MRI showed good image quality to detect lesions. And whole-body PET/MRI as a single modality was feasible for staging in a clinical setting. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET), regional positron emission tomography (PET), dedicated MRI and regional PET/Gd-MRI showed discordant results in lesion detection. These discordant results might be synergistic effect for accurate staging.

Keywords

Head and neck cancer Oncology PET MRI Integrated PET/MRI 

References

  1. 1.
    Pauleit D, Zimmermann A, Stoffels G, Bauer D, Risse J, Fluss MO, et al. 18F-FET PET compared with 18F-FDG PET and CT in patients with head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:256–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Branstetter BF, Blodgett TM, Zimmer LA, Snyderman CH, Johnson JT, Raman S, et al. Head and neck malignancy: is PET/CT more accurate than PET or CT alone? Radiology. 2005;235:580–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    In: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org.
  4. 4.
    Yoon DY, Hwang HS, Chang SK, Rho YS, Ahn HY, Kim JH, et al. CT, MR, US, F-18-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. 2009;19:634–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goerres GW, von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Positron emission tomography and PET CT of the head and neck: FDG uptake in normal anatomy, in benign lesions, and in changes resulting from treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1337–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratib O, Beyer T. Whole-body hybrid PET/MRI: ready for clinical use? Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2011;38:992–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Schneider M, Gudziol V, Langner J, Schramm G, et al. PET/MRI in head and neck cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2013;40:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pfluger T, Melzer HI, Mueller WP, Coppenrath E, Bartenstein P, Albert MH, et al. Diagnostic value of combined F-18-FDG PET/MRI for staging and restaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2012;39:1745–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quick HH, von Gall C, Zeilinger M, Wiesmuller M, Braun H, Ziegler S, et al. Integrated whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:280–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sumi M, Sakihama N, Sumi T, Morikawa M, Uetani M, Kabasawa H, et al. Discrimination of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24:1627–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Bondt RB, Nelemans PJ, Bakers F, Casselman JW, Peutz-Kootstra C, Kremer B, et al. Morphological MRI criteria improve the detection of lymph node metastases in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: multivariate logistic regression analysis of MRI features of cervical lymph nodes. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:626–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regelink G, Brouwer J, de Bree R, Pruim J, van der Laan BFAM, Vaalburg W, et al. Detection of unknown primary tumours and distant metastases in patients with cervical metastases: value of FDG-PET versus conventional modalities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2002;29:1024–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Byers RM, El-Naggar AK, Lee YY, Rao B, Fornage B, Terry NHA, et al. Cam we detect or predict the presence of occult nodal metastases in patients with squamous carcinoma of the oral tongue? Head Neck J Sci Spec. 1998;20:138–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoder H, Carlson DL, Kraus DH, Stambuk HE, Gonen M, Erdi YE, et al. F-18-FDG PET/CT for detecting nodal metastases in patients with oral cancer staged N0 by clinical examination and CT/MRI. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:755–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagarajah J, Jentzen W, Hartung V, Rosenbaum-Krumme S, Mikat C, Heusner TA, et al. Diagnosis and dosimetry in differentiated thyroid carcinoma using I-124 PET: comparison of PET/MRI vs PET/CT of the neck. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2011;38:1862–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abgral R, Le Roux PY, Rousset J, Querellou S, Valette G, Nowak E, et al. Prognostic value of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:551–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kubota K, Yokoyama J, Yamaguchi K, Ono S, Qureshy A, Itoh M, et al. 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. 2004;31:590–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castelijns JA. PET-MRI in the head and neck area: challenges and new directions. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2425–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baek CH, Chung MK, Son YL, Choi JY, Kim HJ, Yim YJ, et al. Tumor volume assessment by F-18-FDG PET/CT in patients with oral cavity cancer with dental artifacts on CT or MR images. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1422–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soo Jin Lee
    • 1
  • Hyo Jung Seo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
    • 1
    • 3
    • 6
  • Ji Hoon Kim
    • 4
  • E. Edmund Kim
    • 2
    • 5
  • Keon Wook Kang
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jin Chul Paeng
    • 1
  • June-Key Chung
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dong Soo Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, WCU Graduate School of Convergence Science and TechnologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of RadiologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  5. 5.Department of Radiological ScienceUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations