Comparison of efficacy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in pretreatment evaluation of head and neck cancers: An institutional experience

被引:0
|
作者
Jain, Mayuri [1 ]
Sarin, Arti [1 ]
Suhag, V. [1 ]
Gahlot, G. P. S. [2 ]
Jain, Anurag [3 ]
Bandhopadhya, A. [4 ]
机构
[1] Army Hosp RnR, Dept Radiat Oncol, New Delhi, India
[2] Army Hosp RnR, Dept Pathol, New Delhi, India
[3] Army Hosp RnR, Dept Nucl Med, New Delhi, India
[4] Army Hosp RnR, Dept Surg Oncol, New Delhi, India
关键词
Computed tomography scan; fine-needle aspiration cytology; Head and Neck Cancers; positron emission tomography scan; SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA; IMPACT; PET;
D O I
10.4103/ijmpo.ijmpo_226_17
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) constitute 5.4% of all cancers worldwide, and 23% of all cancers in males and 6% of all cancers in females diagnosed in India. Lots of ambiguity exists in primary, nodal, and metastatic workup of these patients, especially in developing countries. Aim: The study was designed to compare the accuracy of whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (WBPET/CT) scan with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) face and neck as pretreatment evaluation for staging workup and management decision and to confirm the nodal findings on imaging with fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). Design: It was a single-institute, prospective, observational, interventional study over a 2-year period. All cases of SCC of upper aerodigestive tract who were scheduled for definitive treatment concurrent chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy were evaluated with routine investigations followed by imaging in the form of CECT face and neck and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) WBPET/CT. Results: In the 40 enrolled patients, all underwent CECT face and neck and WBPET/CT. During initial workup, biopsy was taken from primary site and FNAC was done from neck nodes for diagnosis and for staging. In 40 patients, CECT neck showed nodal metastasis in 39 patients; however, FNAC came positive in 38 cases. PET/CT showed nodal metastasis in 38 patients; however, FNAC came positive in 38 cases. Any node with Standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.5 was taken as suspicious lesion and FNAC was done. Sensitivity of CECT and PET/CT was 97.36% and 100%, respectively, while the specificity was 0% and 100%, respectively. Positive predictive value calculated for CECT and WBPET was 94.87% and 100%, respectively, while the negative predictive value for CECT and WBPET was 0% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: In head and neck SCC, FDG-PET/CT is more accurate than CECT in staging of the neck.
引用
收藏
页码:217 / 221
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging and restaging of head and neck cancer: comparison with positron emission tomography read together with contrast-enhanced computed tomography
    Goerres, Gerhard W.
    Schuknecht, Bernhard
    Schmid, Daniel T.
    Stoeckli, Sandro J.
    Hany, Thomas F.
    [J]. CLINICAL IMAGING, 2008, 32 (06) : 431 - 437
  • [2] Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography
    Kim, Jong Hyeon
    Heo, Suk Hee
    Kim, Jin Woong
    Shin, Sang Soo
    Min, Jung Jun
    Kwon, Seong Young
    Jeong, Yong Yeon
    Kang, Heoung Keun
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2017, 23 (35) : 6448 - 6456
  • [3] Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography
    Jong Hyeon Kim
    Suk Hee Heo
    Jin Woong Kim
    Sang Soo Shin
    Jung Jun Min
    Seong Young Kwon
    Yong Yeon Jeong
    Heoung Keun Kang
    [J]. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2017, (35) : 6448 - 6456
  • [4] The Comparison of Computed Tomography Perfusion, Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Detection of Primary Esophageal Carcinoma
    Genc, Berhan
    Kantarci, Mecit
    Sade, Recep
    Orsal, Ebru
    Ogul, Hayri
    Okur, Aylin
    Aydin, Yener
    Karaca, Leyla
    Eroglu, Atilla
    [J]. MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE, 2016, 25 (03) : 254 - 259
  • [5] Comparison of positron emission tomography/computed tomography with classical contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the initial staging of Hodgkin lymphoma
    Bednaruk-Mlynski, Ewa
    Pienkowska, Joanna
    Skorzak, Adam
    Malkowski, Bogdan
    Kulikowski, Waldemar
    Subocz, Edyta
    Dzietczenia, Justyna
    Zalewska, Marta
    Lesniewski-Kmak, Krzysztof
    Zaucha, Renata
    Wrobel, Tomasz
    Zaucha, Jan M.
    [J]. LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA, 2015, 56 (02) : 377 - 382
  • [6] Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for target delineation in head and neck cancers
    Ahn, Peter H.
    Garg, Madhur K.
    [J]. SEMINARS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2008, 38 (02) : 141 - 148
  • [7] Comparing staging by positron emission tomography with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and by pathology in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
    Qualliotine, J. R.
    Mydlarz, W. K.
    Chan, J. Y. K.
    Zhou, X.
    Wang, H.
    Agrawal, N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2015, 129 (12): : 1213 - 1219
  • [8] Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) in Lymphoma
    Niu, Xiaoyan
    Jiang, Wenbin
    Zhang, Xiaojuan
    Ding, Zhaoyan
    Xue, Hongwei
    Wang, Zhenguang
    Zhao, Cheng
    [J]. MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2018, 24 : 5558 - 5565
  • [9] Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan in Nodal Staging of Early Operable Uterine Cancers
    Zade, Anand A.
    Rangarajan, Venkatesh
    Purandare, Nilendu C.
    Shah, Sneha A.
    Agrawal, Archi R.
    [J]. INDIAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2019, 34 (03): : 183 - 187
  • [10] Comparsion of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Lung Cancer Lymph Node Staging
    Jian, Zhang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2015, 56 (03):