Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 6/2014

01-06-2014 | Original Article

PET/MRI and PET/CT in follow-up of head and neck cancer patients

Authors: Marcelo A. Queiroz, Martin Hüllner, Felix Kuhn, Gerhardt Huber, Christian Meerwein, Spyros Kollias, Gustav von Schulthess, Patrick Veit-Haibach

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI combines the functional ability of PET and the high soft tissue contrast of MRI. The aim of this study was to assess contrast-enhanced (ce)PET/MRI compared to cePET/CT in patients with suspected recurrence of head and neck cancer (HNC).

Methods

Eighty-seven patients underwent sequential cePET/CT and cePET/MRI using a trimodality PET/CT-MRI set-up. Diagnostic accuracy for the detection of recurrent HNC was evaluated using cePET/CT and cePET/MRI. Furthermore, image quality, presence of unclear 18F-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose (FDG) findings of uncertain significance and the diagnostic advantages of use of gadolinium contrast enhancement were analysed.

Results

cePET/MRI showed no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy compared to cePET/CT (91.5 vs 90.6 %). Artefacts’ grade was similar in both methods, but their location was different. cePET/CT artefacts were primarily located in the suprahyoid area, while on cePET/MRI, artefacts were more equally distributed among the supra and infrahyoid neck regions. cePET/MRI and cePET/CT showed 34 unclear FDG findings; of those 11 could be solved by cePET/MRI and 5 by cePET/CT. The use of gadolinium in PET/MRI did not yield higher diagnostic accuracy, but helped to better define tumour margins in 6.9 % of patients.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that cePET/MRI may be superior compared to cePET/CT to specify unclear FDG uptake related to possible tumour recurrence in follow-up of patients after HNC. It seems to be the modality of choice for the evaluation of the oropharynx and the oral cavity because of a higher incidence of artefacts in cePET/CT in this area mainly due to dental implants. However, overall there is no statistically significant difference.
Literature
1.
Rangaswamy B, Fardanesh MR, Genden EM, Park EE, Fatterpekar G, Patel Z, et al. Improvement in the detection of locoregional recurrence in head and neck malignancies: F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared to high-resolution contrast-enhanced computed tomography and endoscopic examination. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2664–9.
2.
Sadick M, Schoenberg SO, Hoermann K, Sadick H. Current oncologic concepts and emerging techniques for imaging of head and neck squamous cell cancer. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;11:Doc08.PubMedCentralPubMed
3.
Herrmann K, Krause BJ, Bundschuh RA, Dechow T, Schwaiger M. Monitoring response to therapeutic interventions in patients with cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2009;39(3):210–32.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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(1):24–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Ul-Hassan F, Simo R, Guerrero-Urbano T, Oakley R, Jeannon JP, Cook GJ. Can (18)F-FDG PET/CT reliably assess response to primary treatment of head and neck cancer? Clin Nucl Med 2013;38(4):263–5.PubMedCrossRef
6.
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.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Saito N, Nadgir RN, Nakahira M, Takahashi M, Uchino A, Kimura F, et al. Posttreatment CT and MR imaging in head and neck cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics 2012;32:1261–82.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Castaldi P, Leccisotti L, Bussu F, Miccichè F, Rufini V. Role of (18)F-FDG PET-CT in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2013;33(1):1–8.PubMedCentralPubMed
9.
Offiah C, Hall E. Post-treatment imaging appearances in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Radiol 2011;66(1):13–24.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Schneider M, Gudziol V, Langner J, Schramm G, et al. PET/MRI in head and neck cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(1):6–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
11.
Chawla S, Kim S, Dougherty L, Wang S, Loevner LA, Quon H, et al. Pretreatment diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prediction of local treatment response in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(1):35–43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
Kuhn F, Huellner M, von Schulthess G, Veit-Haibach P. Comparison of contrast enhanced PET/MRI and contrast enhanced PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 2013;54(Suppl 2):515.
13.
Veit-Haibach P, Kuhn FP, Wiesinger F, Delso G, von Schulthess G. PET-MR imaging using a tri-modality PET/CT-MR system with a dedicated shuttle in clinical routine. MAGMA 2013;26:25–35.
14.
Kuhn FP, Crook DW, Mader CE, Appenzeller P, von Schulthess GK, Schmid DT. Discrimination and anatomical mapping of PET-positive lesions: comparison of CT attenuation-corrected PET images with coregistered MR and CT images in the abdomen. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(1):44–51.PubMedCrossRef
15.
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(1):181–200.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
16.
Kuhn F, Wiesinger F, Wollenweber S, Samarin A, Von Schulthess G, Schmid D. Sequential integrated PET/CT-MR system: comparison of image registration accuracy of PET/CT versus PET/MR. Melbourne, Australia: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM); 2012
17.
Glastonbury CM, Salzman KL. Pitfalls in the staging of cancer of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2013;23(1):9–25.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. J Nucl Med 2012;53(6):928–38.PubMedCrossRef
19.
von Schulthess GK, Kuhn FP, Kaufmann P, Veit-Haibach P. Clinical positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging applications. Semin Nucl Med 2013;43(1):3–10.CrossRef
20.
Appenzeller P, Mader C, Huellner MW, Schmidt D, Schmid D, Boss A, et al. PET/CT versus body coil PET/MRI: how low can you go? Insights Imaging 2013;4(4):481–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Bhargava P, Rahman S, Wendt J. Atlas of confounding factors in head and neck PET/CT imaging. Clin Nucl Med 2011;36(5):e20–9.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Nagamachi S, Nishii R, Wakamatsu H, Mizutani Y, Kiyohara S, Fujita S, et al. The usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI fusion image in diagnosing pancreatic tumor: comparison with (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2013;27(6):554–63.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Takahashi S, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI for staging of endometrial cancer: comparison with (18)F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(10):1672–6.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Pfluger T, Melzer HI, Mueller WP, Coppenrath E, Bartenstein P, Albert MH, et al. Diagnostic value of combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI for staging and restaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(11):1745–55.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Nakamoto Y, Tamai K, Saga T, Higashi T, Hara T, Suga T, et al. Clinical value of image fusion from MR and PET in patients with head and neck cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11(1):46–53.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ishikita T, Oriuchi N, Higuchi T, Miyashita G, Arisaka Y, Paudyal B, et al. Additional value of integrated PET/CT over PET alone in the initial staging and follow up of head and neck malignancy. Ann Nucl Med 2010;24(2):77–82.PubMedCrossRef
28.
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(11):2278–83.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kim SY, Kim JS, Yi JS, Lee JH, Choi SH, Nam SY, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT/MRI with histopathologic correlation in patients undergoing salvage surgery for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18(9):2579–84.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Samarin A, Burger C, Wollenweber SD, Crook DW, Burger IA, Schmid DT, et al. PET/MR imaging of bone lesions–implications for PET quantification from imperfect attenuation correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(7):1154–60.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Nassenstein K, Veit-Haibach P, Stergar H, Gutzeit A, Freudenberg L, Kuehl H, et al. Cervical lymph node metastases of unknown origin: primary tumor detection with whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2007;48(10):1101–8.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Barral JK, Santos JM, Damrose EJ, Fischbein NJ, Nishimura DG. Real-time motion correction for high-resolution larynx imaging. Magn Reson Med 2011;66(1):174–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
33.
Prestwich RJ, Sykes J, Carey B, Sen M, Dyker KE, Scarsbrook AF. Improving target definition for head and neck radiotherapy: a place for magnetic resonance imaging and 18-fluoride fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012;24(8):577–89.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
PET/MRI and PET/CT in follow-up of head and neck cancer patients
Authors
Marcelo A. Queiroz
Martin Hüllner
Felix Kuhn
Gerhardt Huber
Christian Meerwein
Spyros Kollias
Gustav von Schulthess
Patrick Veit-Haibach
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2707-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 6/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Metabolic tumour burden assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT associated with serum CA19-9 predicts pancreatic cancer outcome after resection

Original Article

Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of suspected recurrence in patients with oesophageal carcinoma

Original Article

Attenuated right ventricular energetics evaluated using 11C-acetate PET in patients with pulmonary hypertension

Image of the Month

FDG PET/CT in autoimmune pancreatitis

Original Article

18F-FLT    and 18F-FDOPA PET kinetics in recurrent brain tumors

Original Article

Impact of right-ventricular apical pacing on the optimal left-ventricular lead positions measured by phase analysis of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging