术前F-FDG-PET/CT与增强CT在头颈部鳞状细胞癌患者区域淋巴结转移识别中的比较

Preoperative F-FDG-PET/CT vs Contrast-Enhanced CT to Identify Regional Nodal Metastasis among Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

作者信息

Cho Joshua K, Ow Thomas J, Lee Andrew Y, Smith Richard V, Schlecht Nicolas F, Schiff Bradley A, Tassler Andrew B, Lin Juan, Moadel Renee M, Valdivia Ana, Abraham Tony, Gulko Edwin, Neimark Matthew, Ustun Berrin, Bello Jacqueline A, Shifteh Keivan

机构信息

1 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.

2 Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bronx, New York, USA.

出版信息

Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Sep;157(3):439-447. doi: 10.1177/0194599817703927. Epub 2017 Jun 13.

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to compare the accuracy of preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in detecting cervical nodal metastases in patients treated with neck dissection and to scrutinize the ability of each modality to determine nodal stage. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Subjects and Methods Patients who underwent neck dissection at our institution for primary treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and had received preoperative PET/CT and CECT were included in this study. Imaging studies were reinterpreted by 3 specialists within the field and compared for interreader agreement. Concordance between radiology and histopathology was measured using neck levels and sides, along with patient nodal stage. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and agreement coefficients were calculated. Results Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Sensitivity was 0.69 and 0.94 (level and side) for PET/CT vs 0.53 and 0.66 for CECT ( P = .056, P = .001). Specificity was 0.86 and 0.56 for PET/CT vs 0.91 and 0.76 for CECT ( P = .014, P = .024). No significant difference was found in overall accuracy ( P = .33, P = .88). The overall agreement percentages between N stage called by imaging modality and pathology were 52% and 55% for PET/CT and CECT, respectively. Conclusion No significant difference in sensitivity was found between PET/CT and CECT. CECT was found to have superior specificity compared with PET/CT. The information gleaned from each modality in the pretreatment evaluation of HNSCC appears to be complementary.

摘要

目的 我们的目的是比较术前正电子发射断层扫描(PET)/计算机断层扫描(CT)与对比增强CT(CECT)在检测接受颈部清扫术患者颈部淋巴结转移方面的准确性,并仔细研究每种检查方式确定淋巴结分期的能力。

研究设计 病例系列研究并进行病历回顾。

研究地点 纽约州布朗克斯区的蒙特菲奥里医疗中心。

研究对象与方法 本研究纳入了在我们机构接受颈部清扫术以治疗头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)且术前接受过PET/CT和CECT检查的患者。由该领域的3位专家重新解读影像学检查结果,并比较阅片者之间的一致性。使用颈部水平和侧别以及患者淋巴结分期来衡量放射学检查结果与组织病理学检查结果之间的一致性。计算敏感性、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和一致性系数。

结果 73例患者纳入本研究。PET/CT的敏感性(按水平和侧别)分别为0.69和0.94,而CECT为0.53和0.66(P = 0.056,P = 0.001)。PET/CT的特异性分别为0.86和0.56,而CECT为0.91和0.76(P = 0.014,P = 0.024)。总体准确性方面未发现显著差异(P = 0.33,P = 0.88)。PET/CT和CECT根据影像学检查方式判断的N分期与病理学结果之间的总体一致率分别为52%和55%。

结论 PET/CT和CECT在敏感性方面未发现显著差异。发现CECT与PET/CT相比具有更高的特异性。在HNSCC的预处理评估中,从每种检查方式获得的信息似乎具有互补性。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索