Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T18:05:29.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic effectiveness of positron emission tomography-computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the post-treatment surveillance of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2022

Y Zhu Open the ORCID record for Y Zhu [Opens in a new window] ,
O McLaren ,
J Hardman ,
J Evans  and
R Williams
Y Zhu*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK
O McLaren
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK
J Hardman
Affiliation:
Head and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
J Evans
Affiliation:
Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol, UK
R Williams
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Y Zhu, Department of ENT, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Derriford Rd, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

There is currently no consensus on the ideal protocol of imaging for post-treatment surveillance of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. This study aimed to consolidate existing evidence on the diagnostic effectiveness of positron emission tomography-computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging.

Method

Systematic electronic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library (updated February 2021) to identify studies directly comparing positron emission tomography-computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans for detecting locoregional recurrence or residual disease for post-treatment surveillance.

Results

Searches identified 3164 unique records, with three studies included for meta-analysis, comprising 176 patients. The weighted pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for scans performed three to six months post-curative treatment were: positron emission tomography-computed tomography, 0.68 (95 per cent confidence interval, 0.49–0.84) and 0.89 (95 per cent confidence interval, 0.84–0.93); magnetic resonance imaging, 0.72 (95 per cent confidence interval, 0.54–0.88) and 0.85 (95 per cent confidence interval, 0.79–0.89), respectively.

Conclusion

Existing studies do not provide evidence for superiority of either positron emission tomography-computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in detecting locoregional recurrence or residual disease following curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Keywords

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head And NeckPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyMagnetic Resonance ImagingDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFollow-Up Studies
Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 1 , January 2023 , pp. 22 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr Y Zhu takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Cancer incidence for common cancers. In: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/common-cancers-compared#heading-Zero [20 July 2021]Google Scholar
Simo, R, Homer, J, Clarke, P, Mackenzie, K, Paleri, V, Pracy, P et al. Follow-up after treatment for head and neck cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:S208–S11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imbimbo, M, Alfieri, S, Botta, L, Bergamini, C, Gloghini, A, Calareso, G et al. Surveillance of patients with head and neck cancer with an intensive clinical and radiologic follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States) 2019;161:635–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehanna, H, Wong, W-L, McConkey, CC, Rahman, JK, Robinson, M, Hartley, AGJ et al. PET-CT surveillance versus neck dissection in advanced head and neck cancer. New England J Med 2016;374:1444–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noij, DP, Martens, RM, Koopman, T, Hoekstra, OS, Comans, EFI, Zwezerijnen, B et al. Use of diffusion-weighted imaging and 18f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography in the response assessment for (chemo)radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Oncol 2018;30:780–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, X, Rao, S. Surveillance imaging following treatment of head and neck cancer. Seminars Oncol 2017;44:323–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Y, Mabray, M, Silveira, W, Shen, PY, Ryan, WR, Uzelac, A et al. Earlier and more specific detection of persistent neck disease with diffusion-weighted MRI versus subsequent PET/CT after definitive chemoradiation for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2017;39:432–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandecaveye, V, De Keyzer, F, Nuyts, S, Deraedt, K, Dirix, P, Hamaekers, P et al. Detection of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with diffusion weighted MRI after (chemo)radiotherapy: correlation between radiologic and histopathologic findings. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Physics 2007;67:960–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfister, DG, Spencer, S, Adelstein, D, Adkins, D, Anzai, Y, Brizel, DM et al. Head and neck cancers, version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020;18:873–98CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PRISMA for diagnostic test accuracy. In: http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/DTA [24 June 2021]Google Scholar
Deeks, JJ, Wisniewski, S, Davenport, C. Guide to the contents of a Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol. In: https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.sdt/files/public/uploads/Ch04_Sep2013.pdf [19 July 2021]Google Scholar
Sheikhbahaei, S, Taghipour, M, Ahmad, R, Fakhry, C, Kiess, AP, Chung, CH et al. Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up FDG PET or PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer after definitive treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:629–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, ES, Yoon, DY, Moon, JY, Baek, S, Han, YM, Seo, YL et al. Detection of loco-regional recurrence in malignant head and neck tumors: a comparison of CT, MRI, and FDG PET-CT. Acta Radiologica 2019;60:186–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayyan Intelligent Systematic Review. In: https://www.rayyan.ai/ [14 July 2021]Google Scholar
Whiting, PF, Rutjes, A, Westwood, M, Mallett, S, Deeks, J, Reitsma, J. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Internal Med 2011;155:529CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane Methods. Analysing and presenting results. In: http://srdta.cochrane.org/ [25 July 2021]Google Scholar
Cochrane Methods. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies in R: a summary of user-written programs and step-by-step guide to using glmer. In: http://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/ [27 July 2021]Google Scholar
Welcome to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website. In: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ [19 July 2021]Google Scholar
Ghanooni, R, Delpierre, I, Magremanne, M, Vervaet, C, Dumarey, N, Remmelink, M et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in the follow-up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Contrast Media Mol Imag 2011;6:260–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellini, R, Manciocco, V, Turri-Zanoni, M, Vidiri, A, Sanguineti, G, Marucci, L et al. Planned neck dissection after chemoradiotherapy in advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: the role of US, MRI and FDG-PET/TC scans to assess residual neck disease. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:1834–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schouten, CS, Graaf, PD, Alberts, FM, Hoekstra, OS, Comans, EFI, Bloemena, E et al. Response evaluation after chemoradiotherapy for advanced nodal disease in head and neck cancer using diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG-PET-CT. Oral Oncol 2015;51:541–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breik, O, Kumar, A, Birchall, J, Mortimore, S, Laugharne, D, Jones, K. Follow up imaging of oral, oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer patients: comparison of PET-CT and MRI post treatment. J Craniomaxillofacial Surg 2020;48:672–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bankier, AA, Levine, D, Halpern, EF, Kressel, HY. Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way? Radiol 2010;257:14–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jadvar, H, Colletti, PM, Delgado-Bolton, R, Esposito, G, Krause, BJ, Iagaru, AH et al. Appropriate use criteria for 18F-FDG PET/CT in restaging and treatment response assessment of malignant disease. J Nuclear Medicine 2017;58:2026–37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, T, Master, Z, Kannan, S, Agarwal, JP, Ghsoh-Laskar, S, Rangarajan, V et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2011;38:2083–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandecaveye, V, Nuyts, S, Delgado Bolton, RC. Response assessment and follow-up by imaging in head and neck tumours. In: Beets-Tan R, OW, Valentini, V, ed. Imaging and Interventional Radiology for Radiation Oncology. New York: Springer, Cham, 2020;405–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdulamir, AS, Hafidh, RR, Abdulmuhaimen, N, Abubakar, F, Abbas, KA. The distinctive profile of risk factors of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in comparison with other head and neck cancer types. BMC Public Health 2008;8:400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Zhu et al. supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Zhu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 76.8 KB