4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Correlation of positron emission tomography standard uptake value and pathologic specimen size in cancer of the head and neck

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.055

关键词

PET/CT imaging; head-and-neck cancer; pathologic correlation; standard uptake value; radiation planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To correlate positron emission tomography (PET) standard uptake value (SUV) with pathologic specimen size in patients with head-and-neck cancers. Methods and Materials: Eighteen patients with Stage II-IVB head-and-neck cancer with 27 tumors who underwent PET and computed tomography (CT) imaging of the head and neck followed by surgical resection were selected for this study. Various SUV thresholds were examined, including the software default (SUVdef), narrowing the window by 1 standard deviation (SD) of the maximum (SUV-1SD), and SUV cutoff values of 2.5 or greater (SUV2.5) and 40% or greater maximum (SUV40). Volumetric pathologic data were available for 12 patients. Tumor volumes based on pathologic examination (gold standard), CT, SUVdef, SUV-1SD, SUV2.5, and SUV40 were analyzed. Results: PET identified five tumors not seen on CT. The sensitivity of PET for identifying primary tumors was 94% (17 of 18). The Sensitivity of PET for staging the neck was 90% (9 of 10), whereas the specificity was 78% (7 of 9). The SUV2.5 method was most likely to overestimate tumor volume, whereas SUVdef and SUV-1SD were most likely to underestimate tumor volume. Conclusions: The PET scan provides more accurate staging of primary tumors and nodal metastases for patients with advanced head-and-neck cancer than CT alone. Compared with the gold standard, significant variability exists in volumes obtained by using various SUV thresholds. A combination of clinical, CT, and PET data should continue to be used for optimal treatment planning. The SUV40 method appears to offer the best compromise between accuracy and reducing the risk of underestimating tumor extent. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据