Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 1999; 38(08): 312-318
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632228
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Diagnostic Evaluation of Malignant Head and Neck Cancer by F-18-FDG PET Compared to CT/MRI

Diagnostik maligner Kopf-Hals-Tumoren durch F-18-FDG PET im Vergleich zu CT/MRT
B. Nowak
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic Head and Neck Surgery
,
E. Di Martino
2   Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic Head and Neck Surgery
,
S. Jänicke
3   Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery
,
U. Cremerius
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic Head and Neck Surgery
,
G. Adam
4   Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital. Aachen University of Technology, Germany
,
M. Zimny
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic Head and Neck Surgery
,
P. Reinartz
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic Head and Neck Surgery
,
U. Büll
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic Head and Neck Surgery
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 10 May 1999

in revised form: 08 June 1999

Publication Date:
02 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Aim: Evaluation of F-18-FDG PET in comparison to CT/MRI as diagnostic tool in primary and recurrent head and neck cancer. Methods: 78 F-18-FDG PET studies were performed in 71 patients with known or suspected primary (n=48) or recurrent (n=30) head and neck cancer and compared to CT (n=75) or MRI investigations (n=3) concerning detection of the primary or recurrent tumor and detection of regional lymph node metastases in the ipsilateral and contralateral neck sides. Glucose uptake (SUV) of PET findings was correlated to tumor location, grading and dignity of the lesion. Results: Sensitivity and specificity for PET in detection of primary tumors were 87%* and 67%, respectively (CT/MRI 67%* and 44%) (*p<0.05), in detection of local recurrence 86% and 75%, respectively (CT/MRI 57% and 92%), in detection of necks affected by lymph node metastases 80% and 92%, respectively (CT/MRI 80% and 84%). Laryngeal, buccal (cheek) and salivary gland tumors had significant lower glucose uptake (SUV) when compared to tumors of the hypopharynx (p<0.05). G1-tumors (mean SUV 4.26) had significant (p<0.05) lower glucose uptake when compared to G2- and G3-tumors (mean SUV 7.73 and 8.19, respectively). Mean SUV of malignant PET findings (7.88) was significant (p<0.05) higher than mean SUV of benign PET findings (5.70). However, a SUV threshold to improve diagnostic accuracy could not be defined. Conclusion: F-18-FDG PET is significantly more accurate than CT/MRI for detection of head and neck cancer. Both methods are valuable for detection of cervical lymph node metastases. Glucose uptake shows correlation to histological grading. A quantitative SUV analysis does not improve diagnostic accuracy.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Evaluation der F-18-FDG-PET in der Primär- und Rezidivdiagnostik von Kopf-Hals-Tumoren im Vergleich zur CT/MRT. Methoden: Es wurden 78 F-18-FDG-PET-Untersuchungen bei 71 Patienten mit gesichertem odervermutetem primärem (n=48) oder rezidiviertem (n=30) Kopf-Hals-Tumor durchgeführt und mit CT- (n=75) bzw. MRT-Untersuchungen (n=3) hinsichtlich des Nachweises des Primärtumors bzw. des Lokalrezidivs sowie von Lymphknotenmetastasen in den ipsi- und kontralateralen Halsseiten verglichen. Der Glukose-Uptake (SUV) der PET-Herdbefunde wurde korreliert zu Tumorlokalisation, Grading sowie zur Dignität der Befunde. Ergebnisse: Sensitivitäten und Spezifitäten der PET betrugen zum Nachweis des Primärtumors 87%* bzw. 67% (CT/MRT 67%* bzw. 44%) (*p<0,05), zum Lokalrezidivnachweis 86% bzw. 75% (CT/MRT 57% bzw. 92%), zur Erkennung von Lymphknotenmetastasen der Halsseiten 80% bzw. 92% (CT/MRT 80% bzw. 84%). Larynx- und Wangen/Speicheldrüsentumoren wiesen signifikant niedrigere SUVWerte auf als Hypopharynxtumoren (p<0,05). Der Glukosemetabolismus war bei G1-Tumorherden (mittlerer SUV 4,26) signifikant (p<0,05) niedriger als bei G2- und G3-Tumorherden (mittlerer SUV 7,73 bzw. 8,19). Der SUV-Mittelwert maligner PET-Herdbefunde (7,88) war signifikant (p<0,05) höher als der benigner PET-Herdbefunde (5,70), ein SUVSchwellenwert zur Verbesserung der diagnostischen Genauigkeit konnte jedoch nicht definiert werden. Schlußfolgerung: F-18-FDG-PET ist signifikant genauer als CT/MRT beim Nachweis von Kopf-Hals-Tumoren. Beide Verfahren eignen sich in gleicher Weise zur Detektion von Halslymphknotenmetastasen. Der Glukose-Uptake korreliert zum histologischen Grading. Eine quantitative SUV-Analyse führt nicht zur Verbesserung der diagnostischen Genauigkeit.

Key words

Head and neck cancer - F-18-FDG PET - computerized tomography - magnetic resonance imaging - grading

Schlüsselwörter

Kopf-Hals-Tumor - F-18-FDG-PET Computertomographie - Magnetresonanztomographie - Grading
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 AAssar OS, Fischbein NJ, Caputo GR. et al. Metastatic head and neck cancer: role and usefulness of FDG PET in locating occult primary tumors. Radiology 1999; 210: 177-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T. et al. 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: 1255-60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anzai Y, Carroll WR, Quint DJ. et al. Recurrence of head and neck cancer after surgery or irradiation: prospective comparison of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose PET and MR imaging diagnoses. Radiology 1996; 200: 135-41.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bailet JW, Abemayor E, Jabour BA. et al. Positron emission tomography: a new, precise imaging modality for detection of primary head and neck tumors and assessment of cervical adenopathy. Laryngoscope 1992; 102: 281-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bailet JW, Sercarz JA, Abemayor E. et al. The use of positron emission tomography for early detection of recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in postradiotherapy patients. Laryngoscope 1995; 105: 135-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Benchaou M, Lehmann W, Slosman DO. et al. The role of FDG-PET in the preoperative assessment of N-staging in head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1996; 116: 332-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Braams JW, Pruim J, Freiing NJM. et al. Detection of lymph node metastases of squamous-cell cancer of the head and neck with FDG-PET and MRI. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 211-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Braams JW, Pruim J, Kole AC. et al. Detection of unknown primary head and neck tumors by positron emission tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 26: 112-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cremerius U, Striepecke E, Henn W. et al. 18FDG-PET in intracranial meningiomas versus grading, proliferation index, cellular density and cytogenetical analysis. Nuklearmedizin 1994; 33: 144-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Di Chiro G. Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in brain tumors: a powerful diagnostic and prognostic tool. Invest Radiol 1986; 22: 360-71.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Eichhorn T, Schroeder HG, Glanz H, Schwerk WB. Histologically controlled comparison of palpation and sonography in the diagnosis of cervical lymph node metastases. Laryngol Rhinol Otol 1987; 66: 266-74.
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Feinmesser R, Freeman JL, Feinmesser M. et al. Role of modern imaging in decision-making for elective neck dissection. Head Neck 1992; 14: 173-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fischbein NJ, AAssar OS, Caputo GR. et al. Clinical utility of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in detecting residual/recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Am J Neuroradiol 1998; 19: 1189-96.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Glazer H, Niemeyer JH. Blafer DM. Neck neoplasms: MRI imaging part I. Initial evaluation. Radiology 1986; 160: 343-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Greven KM, Williams III DW, Keyes Jr JW. et al. Positron emission tomography of patients with head and neck carcinoma before and after high dose irradiation. Cancer 1994; 74: 1355-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Greven KM, Williams DW, 3rd. Keyes Jr JW. et al Can positron emission tomography distinguish tumor recurrence from irradiation sequelae in patients treated for larynx cancer?. Cancer J Sei Am 1997; 3: 353-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Griffeth LK, Dehdashti F, McGuire AH. et al. PET evaluation of soft tissue masses with fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1992; 182: 185-94.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Haberkorn U, Strauss LG, Reisser Ch. et al. Glucose uptake, perfusion, and cell proliferation in head and neck tumors: relation of positron emission tomography to flow cytometry. J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 1548-55.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jabour BA, Choi Y, Höh CK. et al. Extracranial head and neck: PET imaging with 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and MR imaging correlation. Radiology 1993; 186: 27-35.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kole AC, Nieweg OE, Pruim J. et al. Detection of unknown occult primary tumors using positron emission tomography. Cancer 1998; 82: 1160-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer Statistics, 1999. Ca Cancer J Clin 1999; 49: 8-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lapela M, Grenman R, Kurki T. et al. Head and neck cancer: detection of recurrence with PET and 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1995; 197: 205-11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Laubenbacher C, Saumweber D, Wagner-Manslau C. et al. Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, MRI and endoscopy for staging head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas. J^Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1747-57.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Laubenbacher C, Kau RJ, Alexiou C. et al. Kopf-Hals-Tumoren. In: PET in der Onkologie: Grundlagen und klinische Anwendungen. Ruhlmann J, Oehr P, Biersack H-J. (Hrsg.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1998: 64-77.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Lenz M, Bongers H, Ozdoba C, Skalej M. The clinical value of computed tomography in the pretherapeutic T-staging of orofacial tumors. RöFo Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1989; 151: 138-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McGuirt WF, Williams III DW, Keyes Jr JW. et al. A comparative diagnostic study of head and neck nodal metastases using positron emission tomography. Laryngoscope 1995; 105: 373-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McGuirt WF, Greven K, Keyes Jr JW. et al. Laryngeal radionecrosis versus recurrent cancer: a clinical approach. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998; 107: 293-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 McGuirt WF, Greven K, Williams D. 3rd et al. PET scanning in head and neck oncology: a review. Head Neck 1998; 20: 208-15.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Minn H, Joensuu H, Ahonen A, Klemi P. Fluorodeoxyglucose imaging: a method to assess the proliferative activity of human cancer in vivo. Cancer 1988; 61: 1776-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Minn H, Lapela M, Klemi PJ. et al. Prediction of survival with fluorine-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose and PET in head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1907-11.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Myers LL, Wax MK, Nabi H. et al. Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of the NO neck. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 232-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nitzsche EU, Hoegerle S, Juengling F. et al. Nichtinvasive Dignitätsbestimmung von Pankreasläsionen mittels FDG-PET: Ist eine Beurteilung der FDG-Kinetik gegenüber der statischen Analyse von Vorteil?. Nuklearmedizin 1998; 37 A 11.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Rege S, Maass A, Chaiken L. et al. Use of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with extracranial head and neck cancers. Cancer 1994; 73: 3047-58.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Reske SN, Bares R, Büll U. et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncologic questions: results of an interdisciplinary consensus conference. Nuklearmedizin 1996; 35: 42-52.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Reske SN. et al. Konsensus – Onko-PET. Nuklearmedizin 1997; 36: 45-6.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Scheidhauer K, Jungehülsing M, Pietrzyk U, Schicha H. FDG-PET zum Nachweis unbekannter Primärtumoren (CUP-Syndrom). Nuklearmedizin 1998; 37 A 11.
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Schipper JH, Schräder M, Arweiler D. et al. Positron emission tomography for primary tumor detection in lymph node metastases with unknown primary tumor. HNO 1996; 44: 254-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Som PM. Detection of metastasis in cervical lymph nodes: CT and MR criteria and differential diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 156: 961-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Spitz MR. Epidemiology and risk factors for head and neck cancer. Sem Oncol 1994; 21: 281-8.
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Steiner W. Early detection of cancer in the upper aerodigestive tract. Part I. HNO 1993; 41: 360-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Steinkamp HJ, Maurer J, Heim T. et al. Magnetic resonance tomography and computerized tomography in tumor staging of mouth and oropharyngeal cancer. HNO 1993; 41: 519-25.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Thill R, Neuerburg J, Fabry U. et al. Comparison of findings with 18-FDG PET and CT in pretherapeutic staging of malignant lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 1997; 36: 234-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Vokes EE, Weichselbaum RR, Lippman SM, Hong WK. Medical progress: head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 184-94.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar