Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

18F-FDG PET/CT and 3.0-T whole-body MRI for the detection of distant metastases and second primary tumours in patients with untreated oropharyngeal/hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 3.0-T whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) for the assessment of distant metastases and second primary cancer (SPC) in patients with untreated oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OHSCC).

Methods

A total of 103 patients were enrolled. All participants underwent 3.0-T WB-MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT. The diagnostic capabilities of the two imaging modalities were compared using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve. Histology and follow-up data were used as the reference standard.

Results

Of the 103 patients, 18 (17.5%) were found to have either distant metastases or SPC. A total of 21 sites were involved. On a lesion-based analysis, 18F-FDG PET/CT showed a trend toward a higher sensitivity than WB-MRI (81.0% vs. 61.9%, P = 0.125). The area under the curve (AUC) for PET/CT was also higher than for WB-MRI, although not significantly so (0.932 vs. 0.866, P = 0.189). On a patient-based analysis, the sensitivity of WB-MRI was lower than that of PET/CT (66.7% vs. 83.3%, P = 0.625). In terms of diagnostic capability, the AUC was higher for PET/CT than WB-MRI (0.886 vs. 0.813, P = 0.355). The maximal SUV of the regional lymph nodes (SUVn) above the median value (8.7 g/ml) was significantly associated with the occurrence of distant metastasis (P = 0.026).

Conclusion

18F-FDG PET/CT showed a consistent trend toward higher sensitivity and diagnostic capability than 3.0-Tesla WB-MRI for the detection of distant metastases and SPCs in patients with untreated OHSCC. Our data also suggest that SUVn assessed by PET/CT can provide additional information for the prediction of distant metastases

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Erkal HS, Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, Villaret DB, Stringer SP. Synchronous and metachronous squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck mucosal sites. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1358–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferlito A, Shaha AR, Silver CE, Rinaldo A, Mondin V. Incidence and sites of distant metastases from head and neck cancer. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2001;63:202–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodwin WJ. Distant metastases from oropharyngeal cancer. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2001;63:222–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brochet F, Bairati I, Roy J, Gelinas M, Nabid A, Tetu B, et al. Incidence and risk factors of second primary cancers in patients treated for primary pharyngeal cancer. Bull Cancer Radiother. 1996;83:8–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chuang SC, Scelo G, Tonita JM, Tamaro S, Jonasson JG, Kliewer EV, et al. Risk of second primary cancer among patients with head and neck cancers: a pooled analysis of 13 cancer registries. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:2390–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohan DM, Popat S, Kaplan SE, Rigual N, Loree T, Hicks Jr WL. Oropharyngeal cancer: current understanding and management. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:88–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lin DT, Cohen SM, Coppit GL, Burkey BB. Squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx and hypopharynx. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2005;38:59–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brouwer J, Senft A, de Bree R, Comans EF, Golding RP, Castelijns JA, et al. Screening for distant metastases in patients with head and neck cancer: is there a role for (18)FDG-PET? Oral Oncol. 2006;42:275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoder H, Yeung HW. Positron emission imaging of head and neck cancer, including thyroid carcinoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34:180–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wong RJ. Current status of FDG-PET for head and neck cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:649–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, Goyen M, Oberhoff C, Debatin JF, et al. Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation of patients for metastases. Radiology. 2004;233:139–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schick F, Whole-body MRI. at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:946–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Walker RE, Eustace SJ. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: techniques, clinical indications, and future applications. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2001;5:5–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brennan DD, Gleeson T, Coate LE, Cronin C, Carney D, Eustace SJ. A comparison of whole-body MRI and CT for the staging of lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:711–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Nogami M, Takenaka D, Yoshikawa T, Yoshimura M, et al. Whole-body MR imaging vs. FDG-PET: comparison of accuracy of M-stage diagnosis for lung cancer patients. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:498–509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Squillaci E, Manenti G, Mancino S, Ciccio C, Calabria F, Danieli R, et al. Staging of colon cancer: whole-body MRI vs. whole-body PET-CT – initial clinical experience. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:676–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lo GG, Ai V, Au-Yeung KM, Chan JK, Li KW, Chien D. Magnetic resonance whole body imaging at 3 Tesla: feasibility and findings in a cohort of asymptomatic medical doctors. Hong Kong Med J. 2008;14:90–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmidt GP, Wintersperger B, Graser A, Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: a comparative study. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:449–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Willinek WA, Schild HH. Clinical advantages of 3.0T MRI over 1.5T. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA. 2003;290:3199–206.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ng SH, Chan SC, Yen TC, Chang JT, Liao CT, Ko SF, et al. (2009) Pretreatment evaluation of distant-site status in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: accuracy of whole-body MRI at 3-Tesla and FDG-PET-CT. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2965–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pfannenberg C, Aschoff P, Schanz S, Eschmann SM, Plathow C, Eigentler TK, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:557–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yi CA, Shin KM, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim H, Kwon OJ, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer staging: efficacy comparison of integrated PET/CT versus 3.0-T whole-body MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;248:632–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ng SH, Chan SC, Liao CT, Chang JT, Ko SF, Wang HM, et al. Distant metastases and synchronous second primary tumors in patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinomas: evaluation of (18)F-FDG PET and extended-field multi-detector row CT. Neuroradiology. 2008;50:969–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ng SH, Yen TC, Chang JT, Chan SC, Ko SF, Wang HM, et al. Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma with palpably negative neck. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4371–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yeh DW, Lee KS, Han J, Yi CA, Lee HY, Chung MJ, et al. Mediastinal nodes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: MRI findings with PET/CT and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:813–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lonneux M, Hamoir M, Reychler H, Maingon P, Duvillard C, Calais G, et al. Positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose improves staging and patient management in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1190–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ng SH, Yen TC, Liao CT, Chang JT, Chan SC, Ko SF, et al. 18F-FDG PET and CT/MRI in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of 124 patients with histologic correlation. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1136–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoon DY, Hwang HS, Chang SK, Rho YS, Ahn HY, Kim JH, et al. CT, MR, US, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and their combined use for the assessment of cervical lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:634–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu GZ, Zhu XD, Li MY. Accuracy of whole-body PET and PET-CT in initial M staging of head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2011;33:87–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haerle SK, Strobel K, Hany TF, Sidler D, Stoeckli SJ. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT versus panendoscopy for the detection of synchronous second primary tumors in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2010;32:319–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Calhoun KH, Fulmer P, Weiss R, Hokanson JA. Distant metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Laryngoscope. 1994;104:1199–205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, Treder W, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold MR imaging for whole-body tumor staging in less than 15 minutes: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:445–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Frericks BB, Meyer BC, Martus P, Wendt M, Wolf KJ, Wacker F. MRI of the thorax during whole-body MRI: evaluation of different MR sequences and comparison to thoracic multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:538–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Devaraj A, Cook GJ, Hansell DM. PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer staging – promises and problems. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:97–108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bakheet SM, Amin T, Alia AG, Kuzo R, Powe J. F-18 FDG uptake in benign esophageal disease. Clin Nucl Med. 1999;24:995–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Allal AS, Dulguerov P, Allaoua M, Haenggeli CA, El-Ghazi el A, Lehmann W, et al. Standardized uptake value of 2-[(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in predicting outcome in head and neck carcinomas treated by radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1398–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chan SC, Chang JT, Wang HM, Lin CY, Ng SH, Fan KH, et al. Prediction for distant failure in patients with stage M0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the role of standardized uptake value. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:52–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Inokuchi H, Kodaira T, Tachibana H, Nakamura T, Tomita N, Nakahara R, et al. Clinical usefulness of [18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake in 178 head-and-neck cancer patients with nodal metastasis treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy: consideration of its prognostic value and ability to provide guidance for optimal selection of patients for planned neck dissection. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:747–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Liao CT, Chang JT, Wang HM, Ng SH, Hsueh C, Lee LY, et al. Pretreatment primary tumor SUVmax measured by FDG-PET and pathologic tumor depth predict for poor outcomes in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and pathologically positive lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:764–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Jaffe TA, Yoshizumi TT, Toncheva G, Anderson-Evans C, Lowry C, Miller CM, et al. Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1141–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Leide-Svegborn S. Radiation exposure of patients and personnel from a PET/CT procedure with 18F-FDG. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2010;139:208–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge grants from the National Science Council-Taiwan (NSC97-2314-B-182A-100-MY2 and NSC99-2314-B-182-039-MY3) and from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CMRPG360083).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

    Sheng-Chieh Chan & Tzu-Chen Yen

  2. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

    Hung-Ming Wang

  3. Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Chien-Yu Lin

  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chien-Yu Lin

  5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, 5 Fu-Shin St, Kueishan, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan

    Shy-Chyi Chin, Yau-Yau Wai, Jiun-Jie Wang & Shu-Hang Ng

  6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chun-Ta Liao

Authors
  1. Sheng-Chieh Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hung-Ming Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tzu-Chen Yen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chien-Yu Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shy-Chyi Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chun-Ta Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yau-Yau Wai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jiun-Jie Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shu-Hang Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu-Hang Ng.

Additional information

Sheng-Chieh Chan and Hung-Ming Wang contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chan, SC., Wang, HM., Yen, TC. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT and 3.0-T whole-body MRI for the detection of distant metastases and second primary tumours in patients with untreated oropharyngeal/hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38, 1607–1619 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1824-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1824-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation