TNM staging with FDG-PET/CT in patients with primary head and neck cancer.
OBJECTIVE
PET/CT, PET+CT, and CT were compared concerning accuracies in TNM staging and malignancy detection in head and neck cancer. The impact of PET/CT compared to the other imaging modalities on therapy management was assessed.


METHODS
Fifty-five patients with suspected head and neck primary cancer underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT. PET/CT and PET+CT were evaluated by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist; CT was evaluated by two radiologists, PET by two nuclear physicians. Histopathology served as the standard of reference. Differences between the staging modalities were tested for statistical significance by McNemar's test.


RESULTS
Overall TNM-staging and T-staging with PET/CT were more accurate than PET+CT and CT alone (p < 0.05). PET/CT was marginally more accurate than CT alone in N-staging (p = 0.04); no statistically significant difference was found when compared to PET+CT for N-staging. PET/CT altered further treatment in 13 patients compared to CT only and in 7 patients compared to PET+CT.


CONCLUSIONS
Combined PET/CT proved to be partly more accurate in assessing the overall TNM-stage than CT and PET+CT. These results were based on a higher accuracy concerning the T-stage, mainly in patients with metallic implants and marginally the N-stage. Therapy decisions have been influenced in a substantial number of patients. PET/CT might be considered as a first line diagnostic tool in patients with suspected primary head and neck cancer.
Veit-Haibach
Patrick
P
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, Essen, Germany. patrick.veit-haibach@usz.ch
Luczak
Christopher
C
Wanke
Isabel
I
Fischer
Markus
M
Egelhof
Thomas
T
Beyer
Thomas
T
Dahmen
Gerlinde
G
Bockisch
Andreas
A
Rosenbaum
Sandra
S
Antoch
Gerald
G
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000145:classification* / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*
D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
J Nucl Med. 2006 May;47(5):755-62
16644744
Radiology. 2005 Jan;234(1):227-34
15564390
J Nucl Med. 2006 Nov;47(11):1808-12
17079814
CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Jan-Feb;55(1):10-30
15661684
Curr Opin Oncol. 2006 May;18(3):247-52
16552236
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Nov;179(5):1337-43
12388526
Radiology. 2005 Mar;234(3):879-85
15734938
Radiol Clin North Am. 1998 Sep;36(5):983-1014, vii
9747197
Nucl Med Commun. 2005 Oct;26(10 ):861-7
16160644
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Jan;132(1):12-6
16415423
Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):891-908
9595618
J Clin Oncol. 2003 May 15;21(10):1980-7
12743152
Med Phys. 2007 Apr;34(4):1253-65
17500457
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Apr;30(4):588-96
12582813
Radiology. 2004 Oct;233(1):93-100
15317953
Head Neck. 2007 Nov;29(11):986-95
17563906
Rofo. 1994 Jun;160(6):500-5
8011994
Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1997 Jun;22(3):209-14
9222623
Arch Surg. 1998 May;133(5):510-5; discussion 515-6
9605913
Eur J Nucl Med. 1998 Sep;25(9):1255-60
9724374
Radiology. 1994 Jun;191(3):795-8
8184067
Am J Surg. 1996 Dec;172(6):628-32
8988664
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 10;24(17):2644-52
16763278
Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):879-85
14764889
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Dec;125(12 ):1322-8
10604409
J Nucl Med. 2005 Apr;46(4):596-602
15809481
Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):281-7
16118155
Invest Radiol. 2003 Dec;38(12 ):784-9
14627896
Semin Nucl Med. 2004 Jul;34(3):180-97
15202100
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2003 Dec;15(8):461-6
14690001
Radiology. 2005 May;235(2):580-6
15858097
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Apr;35(4):332-6
16280234
Radiology. 1996 Jul;200(1):135-41
8657901
J Nucl Med. 2006 Feb;47(2):256-61
16455631