Skip to main content
Log in

Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) with or without computed tomography (CT) in post-treatment response assessment and/or surveillance imaging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Methods

A systematic search of the indexed medical literature was done using appropriate keywords to identify relevant studies. Metrics of diagnostic test accuracy, viz. sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were extracted from individual studies and combined using a random effects model to yield weighted mean pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The impact of timing of post-treatment scan, study quality and advancements in PET technology was explored through meta-regression.

Results

A total of 51 studies involving 2,335 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted mean (95% CI) pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of post-treatment FDG PET(CT) for the primary site was 79.9% (73.7–85.2%), 87.5% (85.2–89.5%), 58.6% (52.6–64.5%) and 95.1% (93.5–96.5%), respectively. Similar estimates for the neck were 72.7% (66.6–78.2%), 87.6% (85.7–89.3%), 52.1% (46.6–57.6%) and 94.5% (93.1–95.7%), respectively. Scans done ≥12 weeks after completion of definitive therapy had moderately higher diagnostic accuracy on meta-regression analysis using time as a covariate.

Conclusion

The overall diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET(CT) for response assessment and surveillance imaging of HNSCC is good, but its PPV is somewhat suboptimal. Its NPV remains exceptionally high and a negative post-treatment scan is highly suggestive of absence of viable disease that can guide therapeutic decision-making. Timing of post-treatment imaging has a significant, though moderate impact on diagnostic accuracy.

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

Access this article

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. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Estimating the world cancer burden: GLOBOCAN 2000. Int J Cancer 2001;94:153–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Domenge C, Designé L. Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy on Head and Neck Cancer. Lancet 2000;355:949–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pignon JP, le Maître A, Maillard E, Bourhis J, MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. Radiother Oncol 2009;92:4–14. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.04.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hermans R. Head and neck cancer: how imaging predicts treatment outcome. Cancer Imaging 2006;6:S145–53. doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2006.9028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Subramaniam RM, Lowe VJ. Squamous cell carcinoma: restaging and response to therapy. PET Clin 2007;2:481–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eisbruch A, Marsh LH, Dawson LA, Bradford CR, Teknos TN, Chepeha DB, et al. Recurrences near base of skull after IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: implications for target delineation in high neck and for parotid gland sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:28–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee N, Xia P, Fischbein NJ, Akazawa P, Akazawa C, Quivey JM. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: the UCSF experience focusing on target volume delineation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:49–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hermans R. Posttreatment imaging in head and neck cancer. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:501–11. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lell M, Baum U, Greess H, Nömayr A, Nkenke E, Koester M, et al. Head and neck tumors: imaging recurrent tumor and post-therapeutic changes with CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol 2000;33:239–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Allen-Auerbach M, Weber WA. Measuring response with FDG-PET: methodological aspects. Oncologist 2009;14:369–77. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schöder H, Fury M, Lee N, Kraus D. PET monitoring of therapy response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:74S–88S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abgral R, Querellou S, Potard G, Le Roux PY, Le Duc-Pennec A, Marianovski R, et al. Does 18F-FDG PET/CT improve the detection of posttreatment recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in patients negative for disease on clinical follow-up? J Nucl Med 2009;50:24–9. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.055806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Andrade RS, Heron DE, Degirmenci B, Filho PA, Branstetter BF, Seethala RR, et al. Posttreatment assessment of response using FDG-PET/CT for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:1315–22. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brkovich VS, Miller FR, Karnad AB, Hussey DH, McGuff HS, Otto RA. The role of positron emission tomography scans in the management of the N-positive neck in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after chemoradiotherapy. Laryngoscope 2006;116:855–8. doi:10.1097/01.mlg.0000214668.98592.d6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chaiken L, Rege S, Hoh C, Choi Y, Jabour B, Juillard G, et al. Positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose to evaluate tumor response and control after radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:455–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen AY, Vilaseca I, Hudgins PA, Schuster D, Halkar R. PET-CT vs contrast-enhanced CT: what is the role for each after chemoradiation for advanced oropharyngeal cancer? Head Neck 2006;28:487–95. doi:10.1002/hed.20362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheon GJ, Chung JK, So Y, Choi JY, Kim BT, Jeong JM, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG-PET in the assessment of posttherapeutic recurrence of head and neck cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 1999;2:197–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cho AH, Shah S, Ampil F, Bhartur S, Nathan CO. N2 disease in patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy: is there a role for posttreatment neck dissection? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;135:1112–8. doi:10.1001/archoto.2009.148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Connell CA, Corry J, Milner AD, Hogg A, Hicks RJ, Rischin D, et al. Clinical impact of, and prognostic stratification by, F-18 FDG PET/CT in head and neck mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2007;29:986–95. doi:10.1002/hed.20629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Enomoto K, Inohara H, Higuchi I, Hamada K, Tomiyama Y, Kubo T, et al. Prognostic value of FDG-PET in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Mol Imaging Biol 2008;10:224–9. doi:10.1007/s11307-008-0145-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fischbein NJ, AAssar OS, Caputo GR, Kaplan MJ, Singer MI, Price DC, et al. Clinical utility of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in detecting residual/recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1189–96.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Goerres GW, Schmid DT, Bandhauer F, Huguenin PU, von Schulthess GK, Schmid S, et al. Positron emission tomography in the early follow-up of advanced head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:105–9; discussion 120–1. doi:10.1001/archotol.130.1.105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goguen LA, Posner MR, Tishler RB, Wirth LJ, Norris CM, Annino DJ, et al. Examining the need for neck dissection in the era of chemoradiation therapy for advanced head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:526–31. doi:10.1001/archotol.132.5.526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gourin CG, Boyce BJ, Williams HT, Herdman AV, Bilodeau PA, Coleman TA. Revisiting the role of positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in determining the need for planned neck dissection following chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2009;119:2150–5. doi:10.1002/lary.20523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Greven KM, Williams 3rd DW, Keyes Jr JW, McGuirt WF, Watson Jr NE, Randall ME, et al. Positron emission tomography of patients with head and neck carcinoma before and after high dose irradiation. Cancer 1994;74:1355–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Greven KM, Williams 3rd DW, McGuirt Sr WF, Harkness BA, D’Agostino Jr RB, Keyes Jr JW, et al. Serial positron emission tomography scans following radiation therapy of patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2001;23:942–6. doi:10.1002/hed.1136.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gupta T, Jain S, Agarwal JP, Rangarajan V, Purandare N, Ghosh-Laskar S, et al. Diagnostic performance of response assessment FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with high-precision definitive (chemo)radiation. Radiother Oncol 2010;97:194–9. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2010.04.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Horiuchi C, Taguchi T, Yoshida T, Nishimura G, Kawakami M, Tanigaki Y, et al. Early assessment of clinical response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in head and neck carcinoma using fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35:103–8. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2007.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoshikawa H, Mitani T, Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Ohkawa M, Mori N. Evaluation of the therapeutic effects and recurrence for head and neck cancer after chemoradiotherapy by FDG-PET. Auris Nasus Larynx 2009;36:192–8. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2008.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Inohara H, Enomoto K, Tomiyama Y, Yoshii T, Osaki Y, Higuchi I, et al. The role of CT and (18)F-FDG PET in managing the neck in node-positive head and neck cancer after chemoradiotherapy. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:893–9. doi: 10.1080/00016480802441747.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ito K, Yokoyama J, Kubota K, Morooka M, Shiibashi M, Matsuda H. 18F-FDG versus 11C-choline PET/CT for the imaging of advanced head and neck cancer after combined intra-arterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy: the time period during which PET/CT can reliably detect non-recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1318–27. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1400-x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kao J, Vu HL, Genden EM, Mocherla B, Park EE, Packer S, et al. The diagnostic and prognostic utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based follow-up after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Cancer 2009;115:4586–94. doi:10.1002/cncr.24493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim HJ, Boyd J, Dunphy F, Lowe V. F-18 FDG PET scan after radiotherapy for early-stage larynx cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1998;23:750–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim SY, Lee SW, Nam SY, Im KC, Kim JS, Oh SJ, et al. The feasibility of 18F-FDG PET scans 1 month after completing radiotherapy of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Nucl Med 2007;48:373–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kitagawa Y, Nishizawa S, Sano K, Ogasawara T, Nakamura M, Sadato N, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (MRI, CT, and 67Ga scintigraphy) in assessment of combined intraarterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy for head and neck carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:198–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Krabbe CA, Pruim J, Dijkstra PU, Balink H, van der Laan BF, de Visscher JG, et al. 18F-FDG PET as a routine posttreatment surveillance tool in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1940–7. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.065300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee JC, Kim JS, Lee JH, Nam SY, Choi SH, Lee SW, et al. F-18 FDG-PET as a routine surveillance tool for the detection of recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2007;43:686–92. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR, Kim H, Dunleavy T, Collins BT, et al. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:651–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lyford-Pike S, Ha PK, Jacene HA, Saunders JR, Tufano RP. Limitations of PET/CT in determining need for neck dissection after primary chemoradiation for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2009;71:251–6. doi:10.1159/000237737.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Malone JP, Gerberi MA, Vasireddy S, Hughes LF, Rao K, Shevlin B, et al. Early prediction of response to chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer: reliability of restaging with combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;135:1119–25. doi:10.1001/archoto.2009.152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Martin RC, Fulham M, Shannon KF, Hughes C, Gao K, Milross C, et al. Accuracy of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for mucosal head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2009;31:244–50. doi:10.1002/hed.20962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. McCollum AD, Burrell SC, Haddad RI, Norris CM, Tishler RB, Case MA, et al. Positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose to predict pathologic response after induction chemotherapy and definitive chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2004;26:890–6. doi:10.1002/hed.20080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Moeller BJ, Rana V, Cannon BA, Williams MD, Sturgis EM, Ginsberg LE, et al. Prospective risk-adjusted [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography assessment of radiation response in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2509–15. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.19.3300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nam SY, Lee SW, Im KC, Kim JS, Kim SY, Choi SH, et al. Early evaluation of the response to radiotherapy of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck using 18FDG-PET. Oral Oncol 2005;41:390–5. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.10.005.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Nayak JV, Walvekar RR, Andrade RS, Daamen N, Lai SY, Argiris A, et al. Deferring planned neck dissection following chemoradiation for stage IV head and neck cancer: the utility of PET-CT. Laryngoscope 2007;117:2129–34. doi:10.1097/MLG.0b013e318149e6bc.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Oe A, Kawabe J, Torii K, Kawamura E, Kotani J, Hayashi T, et al. Detection of local residual tumor after laryngeal cancer treatment using FDG-PET. Ann Nucl Med 2007;21:9–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ong SC, Schöder H, Lee NY, Patel SG, Carlson D, Fury M, et al. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing the neck after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregional advanced head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 2008;49:532–40. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.044792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Passero VA, Branstetter BF, Shuai Y, Heron DE, Gibson MK, Lai SY, et al. Response assessment by combined PET-CT scan versus CT scan alone using RECIST in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Ann Oncol 2010;21:2278–83. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq226.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Porceddu SV, Jarmolowski E, Hicks RJ, Ware R, Weih L, Rischin D, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the detection of disease in residual neck nodes after (chemo)radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2005;27:175–81. doi:10.1002/hed.20130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rabalais AG, Walvekar R, Nuss D, McWhorter A, Wood C, Fields R, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography surveillance for the node-positive neck after chemoradiotherapy. Laryngoscope 2009;119:1120–4. doi:10.1002/lary.20201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Rege S, Maass A, Chaiken L, Hoh CK, Choi Y, Lufkin R, et al. Use of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with extracranial head and neck cancers. Cancer 1994;73:3047–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rogers JW, Greven KM, McGuirt WF, Keyes Jr JW, Williams 3rd DW, Watson NE, et al. Can post-RT neck dissection be omitted for patients with head-and-neck cancer who have a negative PET scan after definitive radiation therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:694–7. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(03)01625-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ryan WR, Fee Jr WE, Le QT, Pinto HA. Positron-emission tomography for surveillance of head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2005;115:645–50. doi:10.1097/01.mlg.0000161345.23128.d4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Salaun PY, Abgral R, Querellou S, Couturier O, Valette G, Bizais Y, et al. Does 18fluoro-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography improve recurrence detection in patients treated for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with negative clinical follow-up? Head Neck 2007;29:1115–20. doi:10.1002/hed.20645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tan A, Adelstein DJ, Rybicki LA, Saxton JP, Esclamado RM, Wood BG, et al. Ability of positron emission tomography to detect residual neck node disease in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:435–40. doi:10.1001/archotol.133.5.435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang YF, Liu RS, Chu PY, Chang FC, Tai SK, Tsai TL, et al. Positron emission tomography in surveillance of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Head Neck 2009;31:442–51. doi:10.1002/hed.20978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ware RE, Matthews JP, Hicks RJ, Porceddu S, Hogg A, Rischin D, et al. Usefulness of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with a residual structural abnormality after definitive treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 2004;26:1008–17. doi:10.1002/hed.20097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Yao M, Luo P, Hoffman HT, Chang K, Graham MM, Menda Y, et al. Pathology and FDG PET correlation of residual lymph nodes in head and neck cancer after radiation treatment. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30:264–70. doi:10.1097/01.coc.0000257611.65290.aa.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Yao M, Smith RB, Graham MM, Hoffman HT, Tan H, Funk GF, et al. The role of FDG PET in management of neck metastasis from head-and-neck cancer after definitive radiation treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:991–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Yao M, Smith RB, Hoffman HT, Funk GF, Lu M, Menda Y, et al. Clinical significance of postradiotherapy [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in management of head-and-neck cancer-a long-term outcome report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:9–14. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.019.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Yen TC, Lin CY, Wang HM, Huang SF, Liao CT, Kang CJ, et al. 18F-FDG-PET for evaluation of the response to concurrent chemoradiation therapy with intensity-modulated radiation technique for stage T4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:1307–14. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.02.031.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;354:496–507. doi:10.1056/NEJMra050276.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Isles MG, McConkey C, Mehanna HM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:210–22. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01688.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1773–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:181–200. doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tejpal Gupta.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

S1

Methodological quality graph representing response to all 14 items phrased as questions in the QUADAS tool for each individual study (PNG 27 kb)

S2

QUADAS methodological quality summary indicating judgement about each quality item presented as percentages across all included studies (PNG 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gupta, T., Master, Z., Kannan, S. et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38, 2083–2095 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1893-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1893-y

Keywords

Navigation