The emerging role of positron emission tomography in the management of head and neck cancer

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 48-

  Greven, Kathryn M ^a   McGuirt, W Frederick ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002594815     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00020840-199904000-00002     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography. Neurology 1982, 32:1323-1329.
2. Chaiken L, Rege S, Hoh C, Choi Y, Jabour B, Juillar G, et al.: Positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose to evaluate tumor response and control after radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993, 27:455-464
3. Lindohom P, Leskeninen-Kallio S, Minn H, Bergman J, Haaparanta M, Lehikoinen P, et al.: Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and carbon-11 -methionine in head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 34:1711-1716.
4. Shields AF, Lim K, Grierson J, Link J, Krohn KA: Utilization of labeled thymidine in DNA synthesis: studies for PET. J Nucl Med 1990, 31:337-342.
5. Sercarz JA, Bailet JW, Abemayor E, Anzai Y, Hoh CK, Lufkin RB: Computer coregistration of positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance images in head and neck cancer. Am J Otolaryngol 1998, 19:130-135. This article illustrates that the ability to coregister images will improve the detection of malignancy by PET scanning.
6. Tiernoy P, Farag I, Saunders CAB: The use of positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the assessment of trismus associated with head and neck malignancy. J Laryngol Otol 1998, 112:303-306.
7. Minn H, Joensuu H, Ahonen A, Klemi P: Fluorodeoxyglucose imaging: a method to assess the proliferative activity of human cancer in vivo. Comparison with DNA flow cytometry in head and neck tumors. Cancer 1988, 61:1776-1781.
8. Greven KM, Williams DW, Keyes JW Jr, McGuirt WF, Watson NE Jr, Randall ME, et al.: Positron emission tomography of patients with head and neck carcinoma before and after high dose irradiation. Cancer 1994, 74:1355-1359.
9. Kole AC, Nieweg OE, Pruim J, Hoekstra HJ, Koops HS, Roodenburg JLN, et al.: Detection of unknown occult primary tumors using positron emission tomography. Cancer 1998, 82:1160-1166. This report describes a relatively low detection rate for primary site locations in patients presenting with occult cervical neck disease.
10. Greven KM, Keyes JW, Williams DW, McGuirt WF, Joyce WT: Detection of occult primary tumors of the head and neck: utility of FDG-PET imaging. Cancer 1999, in press.
11. Myers LL, Wax MK, Nabi H, Simpson GT, Lamonica D: Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of the NO neck. Laryngoscope 1998, 108:232-236.
12. McGuirt WF, Williams D, Keyes JW: A comparative diagnostic study of head and neck nodaf metastases using positron emission tomography. Laryngoscope 1995, 105:373-375.
13. 18FDG PET. Acta Oncol 1997, 36:741-747.
14. Minn H, Lapela M, Klemi PJ, Grenman R, Leskinen S, Lindholm P, et al.: Prediction of survival with fluorine-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose and PET in head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 1997, 38:1907-1911.
15. Lindholm P, Leskinon S, Lapela M: Carbon-11-methionine uptake in squamous cell head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 1998, 39:1393-1397.
16. Lowe VJ, Dunphy FR, Varvares M, Kim H, Wittry M, Dunphy CH, et al.: Evaluation of chemotherapy response in patients with advanced head and neck cancer using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Head Neck 1997, 19:666-674. This report offers some hope that FDG may help identify patients that can be treated with an organ-sparing approach using chemotherapy.
17. Greven KM, Williams DW III, Keys JW Jr, McGuirt WF, Watson NE Jr, Case LD: Can positron emission tomography distinguish tumor recurrence from irradiation sequetae in patients treated for larynx cancer? Cancer J Sci Am 1997, 3:353-358. This report details a prospective study of 31 patients who underwent PET with standard radiographic evaluation. Inter- and intra-observer variations in the PET interpretations are discussed.