4.7 Article

Staging of untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma with PET/CT: comparison with conventional imaging work-up

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-0918-7

关键词

PET/CT; MRI; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; TNM staging

资金

  1. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 95-2314-B-182A-135-MY2, NSC 96-2314-B-182A-120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose We prospectively compared PET/CT and conventional imaging for initial staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods A total of 111 patients with histologically proven NPC were investigated with PET/CT and conventional imaging (head-and-neck MRI, chest X-ray, abdominal ultrasound, and bone scan) before treatment. The respective findings were reviewed independently and then compared with each other. Results With regard to T staging, PET/CT showed a discrepancy with head-and-neck MRI in 36 (32.4%) of the study subjects. With regard to N staging, PET/CT showed a discrepancy with head-and-neck MRI in 15 (13.5%) patients. Among the discordant cases, MRI was superior in demonstrating tumor involvement in the parapharyngeal space, skull base, intracranial area, sphenoid sinus, and retropharyngeal nodes while PET/CT was superior in demonstrating neck nodal metastasis. PET/CT disclosed 13 of 16 patients with distant malignancy compared with four patients disclosed by conventional imaging work-up. The false-positive rate of PET/CT was 18.8%. PET/CT correctly modified M staging in eight patients (7.2%) and disclosed a second primary lung malignancy in one patient (0.9%). Conclusion In NPC patients, MRI appears to be superior to PET/CT for the assessment of locoregional invasion and retropharyngeal nodal metastasis. PET/CT is more accurate than MRI for determining cervical nodal metastasis and should be the better reference for the neck status. PET/CT has an acceptable diagnostic yield and a low false-positive rate for the detection of distant malignancy and can replace conventional work-up to this aim. PET/CT and head-and-neck MRI are suggested for the initial staging of NPC patients.

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