Schöder Heiko, Carlson Diane L, Kraus Dennis H, Stambuk Hilda E, Gönen Mithat, Erdi Yusuf E, Yeung Henry W D, Huvos Andrew G, Shah Jatin P, Larson Steven M, Wong Richard J
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA.
J Nucl Med. 2006 May;47(5):755-62.
(18)F-FDG PET has a high accuracy in staging head and neck cancer, but its role in patients with clinically and radiographically negative necks (N0) is less clear. In particular, the value of combined PET/CT has not been determined in this group of patients.
In a prospective study, 31 patients with oral cancer and no evidence of lymph node metastases by clinical examination or CT/MRI underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before elective neck dissection. PET/CT findings were recorded by neck side (left or right) and lymph node level. PET/CT findings were compared with histopathology of dissected nodes, which was the standard of reference.
Elective neck dissections (26 unilateral, 5 bilateral; a total of 36 neck sides), involving 142 nodal levels, were performed. Only 13 of 765 dissected lymph nodes harbored metastases. Histopathology revealed nodal metastases in 9 of 36 neck sides and 9 of 142 nodal levels. PET was TP in 6 nodal levels (6 neck sides), false-negative in 3 levels (3 neck sides), true-negative in 127 levels (23 neck sides), and false-positive in 6 levels (4 neck sides). The 3 false-negative findings occurred in metastases smaller than 3 mm or because of inability to distinguish between primary tumor and adjacent metastasis. TP and false-positive nodes exhibited similar standardized uptakes (4.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 4.2 +/- 1.0; P = not significant). Sensitivity and specificity were 67% and 85% on the basis of neck sides and 67% and 95% on the basis of number of nodal levels, respectively. If a decision regarding the need for neck dissection had been based solely on PET/CT, 3 false-negative necks would have been undertreated, and 4 false-positive necks would have been overtreated.
(18)F-FDG PET/CT can identify lymph node metastases in a segment of patients with oral cancer and N0 neck. A negative test can exclude metastatic deposits with high specificity. Despite reasonably high overall accuracy, however, the clinical application of PET/CT in the N0 neck may be limited by the combination of limited sensitivity for small metastatic deposits and a relatively high number of false-positive findings. The surgical management of the N0 neck should therefore not be based on PET/CT findings alone.
(18)F-FDG PET在头颈部癌分期中具有较高的准确性,但其在临床和影像学检查颈部阴性(N0)患者中的作用尚不清楚。特别是,PET/CT联合检查在这类患者中的价值尚未确定。
在一项前瞻性研究中,31例经临床检查或CT/MRI未发现淋巴结转移证据的口腔癌患者在择期颈部清扫术前接受了(18)F-FDG PET/CT检查。PET/CT检查结果按颈部侧别(左侧或右侧)和淋巴结水平记录。将PET/CT检查结果与清扫淋巴结的组织病理学结果进行比较,后者为参考标准。
进行了择期颈部清扫术(26例单侧,5例双侧;共36侧颈部),涉及142个淋巴结水平。765个清扫淋巴结中仅有13个有转移。组织病理学显示36侧颈部中有9侧及142个淋巴结水平中有9个有淋巴结转移。PET在6个淋巴结水平(6侧颈部)为真阳性,3个水平(3侧颈部)为假阴性,127个水平(23侧颈部)为真阴性,6个水平(4侧颈部)为假阳性。3例假阴性结果出现在直径小于3mm的转移灶或因无法区分原发肿瘤与相邻转移灶的情况下。真阳性和假阳性淋巴结的标准化摄取值相似(4.8±1.1对4.2±1.0;P无显著性差异)。基于颈部侧别的敏感性和特异性分别为67%和85%,基于淋巴结水平数的敏感性和特异性分别为67%和95%。如果仅根据PET/CT决定是否需要进行颈部清扫术,3例假阴性颈部将接受不足治疗,4例假阳性颈部将接受过度治疗。
(18)F-FDG PET/CT可在一部分口腔癌和N0颈部患者中识别淋巴结转移。阴性检查结果可高度特异性地排除转移灶。然而,尽管总体准确性较高,但PET/CT在N0颈部的临床应用可能受到对小转移灶敏感性有限和假阳性结果相对较多的限制。因此,N0颈部的手术治疗不应仅基于PET/CT检查结果。