Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print May 10, 2007, 10.1148/radiol.2433060043
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2433060043v1
244/1/263    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yamamoto, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Coleman, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yamamoto, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Coleman, R. E.
(Radiology 2007;244:263-272.)
© RSNA, 2007

Nuclear Medicine

Head and Neck Cancer: Dedicated FDG PET/CT Protocol for Detection—Phantom and Initial Clinical Studies1

Yuka Yamamoto, MD, Terence Z. Wong, MD, PhD, Timothy G. Turkington, PhD, Thomas C. Hawk, BS, and R. Edward Coleman, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine Division, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received January 9, 2006; revision requested March 9; revision received April 6; accepted May 10; final version accepted October 1. Address correspondence to Y.Y., Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa 761-0793, Japan (e-mail: yuka{at}kms.ac.jp).

Purpose: To retrospectively compare the sensitivity of a dedicated fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) protocol versus a standard whole-body PET/CT protocol for detection of head and neck cancer, with biopsy and follow-up as reference standards.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Dedicated and standard PET/CT protocols were performed in a phantom and in 55 patients suspected of having head and neck cancer (28 men, 27 women; age range, 21–79 years). The neck phantom contained four 4.4–9.8-mm-diameter spheres. Standard protocol consisted of a midcranium to proximal thigh emission scan of 2–4 minutes per bed position. Dedicated protocol was an 8-minute head and neck scan. Reconstructed field of view and pixel size, respectively, were 30 cm and 2.34 mm for the dedicated and 50 cm and 3.91 mm for the standard protocol. FDG uptake was evaluated visually and semiquantitatively by using standardized uptake values (SUVs). Mean SUV was compared between dedicated and standard protocols with a t test modified for clustered sampling. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. A two-tailed P value was used.

Results: In the phantom study, a larger percentage difference (20%–27%) in sphere-to-background ratios with the dedicated than with the standard protocol was observed for 6.0–9.8-mm spheres. In the clinical study, a total of 149 lymph nodes were identified. Five malignant and six benign lymph nodes (mean diameter, 7.1 mm) were visually identified with the dedicated protocol only. SUVs with the dedicated protocol were significantly higher than those with the standard protocol (P < .001). Area under the ROC curve was 0.94 for the dedicated and 0.92 for the standard protocol (P = .56).

Conclusion: FDG PET with either the standard or dedicated protocol was more sensitive than CT for evaluating head and neck lymph nodes. The dedicated protocol improved the detectability of smaller nodes.

© RSNA, 2007