Detection of extranodal spread in head and neck cancer with [18F]FDG PET and MRI: improved accuracy?

AIM: Preoperative detection of extranodal spread (ENS) in head and neck cancer can have important consequences for patient management. The aim of this study was to determine whether 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([18F]FDG PET) or a combination with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) could more accurately predict ENS, especially with the near availability of fully integrated [18F]FDG PET/MRI scanners. METHODS: In retrospective cohort design a total of twelve patients, with 18 lymphnode metastases were studied with [18F]FDG PET and MRI. Presence of ENS was scored on MRI, and [18F]FDG PET images using a SUV max cut-off point of 12. Histopathology results were used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of [18F]FDG PET for ENS reached 70%,100% and 83%, respectively. The mean SUVmax of ENS positive lymphnodes was 13.6 versus 8.7 for lymphnode metastases without ENS (P=0.03). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI for ENS were 70%, 100% and 83%, respectively. When the [18F]FDG PET and MRI findings were combined sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 80%, 100% and 89%, respectively. Thus, accuracy increased from 83% to 89%. CONCLUSION: When there is no ENS or doubt of ENS on MRI, [18F]FDG PET seems to have additional value since it improves sensitivity and resolves uncertainty in case of high FDG uptake. This benefit needs to be confirmed prospectively in a larger cohort.

Value of MR and CT Imaging for Assessment of Internal Carotid Artery Encasement in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Objective. This study was conducted to assess the value of CT and MR imaging in the preoperative evaluation of ICA encasement. Methods. Based upon three patient groups this study was performed. Retrospective analysis of 260 neck dissection reports from 2001 to 2010 was performed to determine unexpected peroperative-diagnosed encasement. Two experienced head and neck radiologists reviewed 12 scans for encasement. Results. In four out of 260 (1.5%) patients undergoing neck dissection, preoperative imaging was false negative as there was peroperative encasement of the ICA. Of 380 patients undergoing preoperative imaging, the radiologist reported encasement of the ICA in 25 cases. In 342 cases no encasement was described, 125 of these underwent neck dissection, and 2 had encasement peroperatively. The interobserver variation kappa varied from 0.273 to 1 for the different characteristics studied. Conclusion. These retrospectively studied cohorts demonstrate that preoperative assessment of encasement of the ICA using MRI and/or CT was of value in evaluation of ICA encasement and therefore contributively in selecting operable patients (without ICA encasement), since in only 1.5% encasement was missed. However, observer variation affects the reliability of this feature.

Prognostic significance of radiologically determined neck node volume in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

This systematic review addresses the prognostic significance of neck node volume in head and neck cancer. Primary tumor volume evolved as an independent significant factor for survival in head and neck cancer patients. Besides primary tumor volume, multiple prognostic features related to the regional lymph nodes were studied in literature. In literature, some authors showed the significance of total tumor volume/nodal volume for survival and loco-regional control. Articles reporting prognosis and survival in nodal tumor volumes were collected by systematically reviewing publications listed in the Pubmed and Embase databases. Publications were included when they at least reported on total tumor volume (TTV) or nodal volume and survival. In this systematic review we studied 21 articles. For measurement of nodal volume different formulas were used. Until now, there's no clear statistical evidence for the use of either TTV or nodal volume versus primary tumor volume to predict the individual loco-regional control or survival after treatment. There is wide variety of tumor measuring systems in the literature. The cut-off value for local tumor response also shows large variation. Firstly consensus should be accomplished on standardization of volume measurements, preferably automatic, and secondly large study groups are needed with identical treatment modalities to further unravel the role of neck node volume as separate staging tool.

Selective neck dissection for N0 and N1 oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: are skip metastases a real danger?

OBJECTIVES: To contribute to insight in therapeutic safety of selective neck dissections for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer with a special focus on the risk of skip metastases. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 291 patients operated for oral cavity or oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer between 1999 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of skip metastases in both pathologically N0 and N+ necks for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. RESULTS: Of all neck dissections (n = 226) performed for oral cavity cancer, skip metastases to level III or level IV occurred in 14 cases (6%). Ten skip metastases occurred in level III only (10/226 = 4%). Thus, four necks had metastases in level IV, which would not have been removed in case of a Selective neck dissection level I-III (supraomohyoid neck dissection). In case of oropharyngeal cancer, skip metastases to level III or level IV occurred in six of 92 cases (7%). Five skip metastases occurred in level III only (5/92 = 5%). This means that of the necks containing skip metastases, only one neck (1%): had metastases in level IV, which would not have been removed in case of a Selective neck dissection level I-III (Supraomohyoid neck dissection). CONCLUSIONS: The question whether level IV should be included in the treatment of N0 and even N1 necks of patients with cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx cannot be answered by all data available to us now. The fear of skip metastases including level IV does not seem to be justified.