Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 2002; 41(01): 14-21
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1623998
Originalarbeiten – Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Combined image interpretation of computed tomography and hybrid PET in head and neck cancer

Kombinierte Befundung von Computertomographie und Hybrid-PET bei Kopf-Hals-Tumoren
M. Zimny
1   Department of 1Nuclear Medicine (Head: Prof. Dr. med. U. Büll)
,
J. E. Wildberger
2   Diagnostic Radiology (Head: Prof. Dr. med. R. Günther)
,
U. Cremerius
1   Department of 1Nuclear Medicine (Head: Prof. Dr. med. U. Büll)
,
E. DiMartino
3   Otorhinolaryngology (Head: Prof. Dr. med. M. Westhofen)
,
S. Jaenicke
4   Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. D. Riediger), University of Technology, Aachen, Germany
,
B. Nowak
1   Department of 1Nuclear Medicine (Head: Prof. Dr. med. U. Büll)
,
U. Büll
1   Department of 1Nuclear Medicine (Head: Prof. Dr. med. U. Büll)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 20 August 2001

in revised form: 12 October 2001

Publication Date:
10 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Aim: Evaluation of potential synergistic effects of combined image interpretation of FDG PET using a gamma camera modified for coincidence detection (hybrid PET) and computed tomography (CT) and comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of hybrid PET and dedicated PET in patients with head and neck cancer. Methods: Forty-two patients with suspected primary or recurrent cancer were included. Twenty-four patients underwent dedicated PET in addition to attenuationcorrected hybrid PET using a one-day protocol. Results: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detection of primary or recurrent head and neck cancer were 74, 73, and 74% for hybrid PET, 52, 82, and 60% for CT and 77, 82, and 79% for combined reading. With the combination of CT and hybrid PET all cases of recurrent disease were detected. The largest tumour not detected was 1.7 cm in diameter. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for the detection of neck sides with lymph node metastases were 69, 88, and 85% for hybrid PET, 62, 88, and 84% for CT, 69, 99, and 94% for combined image interpretation. With combined interpretation four involved neck sides were missed including two cases of microscopic metastases. Hybrid PET revealed concordant results to dedicated PET in all patients with respect to the detection of primary or recurrent tumour and in 45 of 48 neck sides (94%) with the same number of false negative findings. Conclusion: The combination of functional information of hybrid PET and morphological information of CT by the simple approach of combined image interpretation improves the sensitivity for the detection of primary/recurrent head and neck cancer and increases the specificity of lymph node staging compared to CT alone. The accuracy of hybrid PET and dedicated PET was almost identical.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Untersuchung potentieller synergistischer Effekte der gemeinsamen Befundung von Patienten mit Kopf- Hals-Tumoren von FDG-PET mit einer Gammakamera (Hybrid-PET) und Computertomographie (CT) und Vergleich der diagnostischen Genauigkeit von Hybrid-PET und Ring-PET. Methoden: Bei 42 Patienten mit gesichertem oder vermutetem Primärtumor/Lokalrezidiv eines Malignoms der Kopf-Hals-Region erfolgte eine Untersuchung mit CT und schwächungskorrigiertem Hybrid-PET, bei 24 Patienten zusätzlich mit Ring-PET. Ergebnisse: Die Sensitivität, Spezifität und Genauigkeit zur Erkennung eines Primärtumors/Lokalrezidivs lag für Hybrid-PET bei 74, 73 und 74%, für CT bei 52, 82 und 60% gegenüber 77, 82 und 79% bei kombinierter Befundung. Bei kombinierter Befundung wurden alle Rezidive detektiert. Der größte nicht erkannte Tumor war 1,7 cm im Durchmesser. Die Sensitivität, Spezifität und Genauigkeit zur Erkennung von Lymphknotenmetastasen betrug 69, 88 und 85% für Hybrid-PET, 62, 88 und 84% für CT gegenüber 69, 99 und 94% bei kombinierter Befundung. Auch mit kombinierter Befundung wurden vier betroffene Halsseiten nicht erkannt, hierunter zwei Fälle mit mikroskopischem Lymphknotenbefall. Hybrid-PET erbrachte im Vergleich zu Ring-PET bezogen auf Primärtumore/Rezidive bei allen Patienten das gleiche Resultat. Befundkonkordanz bezüglich Lymphknotenmetastasen lag bei 94% der Halsseiten vor, bei gleicher Anzahl falsch negativer Befunde. Schlussfolgerung: Die Kombination der funktionellen Bildgebung mit Hybrid-PET und der morphologischen Information von CT führte im Vergleich zu CT allein zu einer Steigerung der Sensitivität bei der Diagnostik von Primärtumoren/Rezidiven und zu einer Steigerung der Spezifität bezogen auf das Lymphknoten-Staging. Die Genauigkeit von Hybrid-PET und Ring-PET war nahezu identisch.

Keywords

Head and neck tumours - fluorodeoxyglucose - hybrid PET - CT

Schlüsselwörter

Kopf-Hals-Tumor - Fluordeoxyglukose - Hybrid-PET - Computertomographie
 

  • References

  • 1 Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hör G. 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
  • 2 Anzai Y, Carroll WR, Quint DJ, Bradford CR, Minoshima S, Wolf GT, Wahl RL. 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
  • 3 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1369-79.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Büll U, Bartenstein P, Kirsch CM, Schicha H. Kombinationssysteme für SPECT, Koinzidenz, PET und CT. Nuklearmedizin 2000; 39: 3-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Delbeke D, Hopper W, Cerci R, Martin HW, Patton JA, Sandler MA. Value of attenuation correction and image fusion for interpretation of FDG images using an integrated hybrid camera with X-ray based attenuation maps in patients with known or suspected malignancies. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 282.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Farber LA, Benard F, Machtay M, Smith RJ, Weber RS, Weinstein GS, Chalian AA, Alavi A, Rosenthal DI. Detection of recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinomas after radiation therapy with 2-18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Laryngoscope 1999; 109: 970-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fischbein NJ, AAssar OS, Caputo GR, Kaplan MJ, Singer MI, Price DC, Dillon WP, Hawkins RA. 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
  • 8 Goerres GW, Haenggeli CA, Allaoua M, Albrecht SR, Dulguerov P, Becker M, Allal AS, Lehmann W, Slosman DO. Direct comparison of F-18-FDG PET and ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Nuklearmedizin 2000; 39: 246-50.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hanasono MM, Kunda LD, Segall GM, Ku GH, Terris DJ. Uses and limitations of FDG positron emission tomography in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 1999; 109: 880-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jungehulsing M, Scheidhauer K, Damm M, Pietrzyk U, Eckel H, Schicha H, Stennert E. 2[F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a sensitive tool for the detection of occult primary cancer (carcinoma of unknown primary syndrome) with head and neck lymph node manifestation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123: 294-301.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kau RJ, Alexiou C, Laubenbacher C, Werner M, Schwaiger M, Arnold W. Lymph node detection of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas by positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 in a routine clinical setting. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 125: 1322-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Koesling S, Schmidtke M, Vothel F, Hahn S, Weidenbach H, Oeken J. Value of spiral CT in the staging of carcinomas of the oral cavity, the oropharynx and hypopharynx. Radiologe 2000; 40: 632-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Laubenbacher C, Saumweber D, Wagner-Manslau C, Kau RJ, Herz M, Avril N, Ziegler S, Kruschke C, Arnold W, Schwaiger M. 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
  • 14 Lenz M, Grees H, Baum U, Dobritz M, Kersting-Sommerhoff B. Oropharynx, oral cavity, floor of the mouth: CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol 2000; 33: 202-15.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Lowe VJ, Dunphy FR, Varvares M, Kim H, Wittry M, Dunphy CH, Dunleavy T, Mc-Donough E, Minster J, Fletcher JW, Boyd JH. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in patients with advanced head and neck cancer using [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Head Neck 1997; 19: 666-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McGuirt WF, Greven K, Williams D, Keyes JWJ, Watson N, Cappellari JO, Geisinger KR. PET scanning in head and neck oncology: a review. Head Neck 1998; 20: 208-15.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Metz CE, Wang PL, Kronman HB. A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Deconinck F. (ed). Information processing in medical imaging. The Hague: Martinns Nijhoff; 1984: 432-45.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Minn H, Joensuu H, Ahonen A, Klemi P. Fluorodeoxyglucose imaging: a method to assess the proliferative activity of human cancer in vivo. Comparison with DNA flow cytometry in head and neck tumours. Cancer 1988; 61: 1776-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Myers LL, Wax MK, Nabi H, Simpson GT, Lamonica D. Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of the N0 neck. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 232-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nowak B, Di Martino E, Jänicke S, Cremerius U, Adam G, Zimny M, Reinartz P, Büll U. Diagnostic evaluation of malignant head and neck cancer by F-18-FDG PET compared to CT/MRI. Nuklearmedizin 1999; 38: 312-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pai M, Park CH, Suh JH, Koh JH. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging using dual-head coincidence positron emission tomography without attenuation correction in patients with head and neck cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1999; 24: 495-500.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Paulus P, Sambon A, Vivegnis D, Hustinx R, Moreau P, Collignon J, Deneufbourg JM, Rigo P. 18FDG-PET for the assessment of primary head and neck tumours: clinical, computed tomography, and histopathological correlation in 38 patients. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 1578-83.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sercarz JA, Bailet JW, Abemayor E, Anzai Y, Hoh CK, Lufkin RB. Computer coregistration of positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance images in head and neck cancer. Am J Otolaryngol 1998; 19: 130-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Shreve PD, Steventon RS, Deters EC, Kison PV, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Oncologic diagnosis with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging: dual-head coincidence gamma camera versus positron emission tomographic scanner. Radiology 1998; 207: 431-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sievers KW, Grees H, Baum U, Dobritz M, Lenz M. Paranasal sinuses and nasopharynx CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol 2000; 33: 185-202.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Stokkel MP, ten Broek FW, Hordijk GJ, Koole R, van Rijk PP. Preoperative evaluation of patients with primary head and neck cancer using dual-head 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Ann Surg 2000; 231: 229-34.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stokkel MP, ten Broek FW, van Rijk PP. Preoperative assessment of cervical lymph nodes in head and neck cancer with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose using a dual-head coincidence camera: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26: 499-503.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stokkel MP, Terhaard CH, Hordijk GJ, van Rijk PP. The detection of local recurrent head and neck cancer with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose dual-head positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26: 767-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wong WL, Chevretton EB, McGurk M, Hussain K, Davis J, Beaney R, Baddeley H, Tierney P, Maisey M. A prospective study of PET-FDG imaging for the assessment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Otolaryngol 1997; 22: 209-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wong WL, Hussain K, Chevretton E, Hawkes DJ, Baddeley H, Maisey M, McGurk M. Validation and clinical application of computer-combined computed tomography and positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2- deoxy- D-glucose head and neck images. Am J Surg 1996; 172: 628-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zimny M, Kaiser HJ, Cremerius U, Sabri O, Schreckenberger M, Reinartz P, Buell U. Fluorine- 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron imaging in oncological patients: gamma camera coincidence detection versus dedicated PET. Nuklearmedizin 1999; 38: 108-14.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zimny M, Kaiser HJ, Cremerius U, Reinartz P, Schreckenberger M, Sabri O, Büll U. Dual-head gamma camera 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-dglucose positron emission tomography in oncological patients: effects of non-uniform attenuation correction on lesion detection. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26: 818-23.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zimny M, Nowak B, Kaiser HJ, Sabri O, Büll U. Einfluss von Fourier-Rebinning auf onkologische FDG-PET mit einer koinzidenzfähigen Doppelkopfkamera (Hybrid-PET). Nuklearmedizin 2001; 40: A87.
    Google Scholar