Cargando…

Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?

OBJECTIVE: 18F FDG‐PET is superior to other imaging techniques in revealing residual laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy. Unfortunately, its specificity is low, due to FDG uptake in inflammation and in anaerobic conditions. PET imaging with the amino acid‐based radiopharmaceutical C11‐methionine (ME...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wedman, Jan, Pruim, Jan, van der Putten, Lisa, Hoekstra, Otto S., de Bree, Remco, van Dijk, Boukje A. C., van der Laan, Bernard F. A. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7380028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30315624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13242
_version_ 1783562775187947520
author Wedman, Jan
Pruim, Jan
van der Putten, Lisa
Hoekstra, Otto S.
de Bree, Remco
van Dijk, Boukje A. C.
van der Laan, Bernard F. A. M.
author_facet Wedman, Jan
Pruim, Jan
van der Putten, Lisa
Hoekstra, Otto S.
de Bree, Remco
van Dijk, Boukje A. C.
van der Laan, Bernard F. A. M.
author_sort Wedman, Jan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: 18F FDG‐PET is superior to other imaging techniques in revealing residual laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy. Unfortunately, its specificity is low, due to FDG uptake in inflammation and in anaerobic conditions. PET imaging with the amino acid‐based radiopharmaceutical C11‐methionine (MET) should be less influenced by post‐radiation conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of MET in diagnosing recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy as compared to 18F‐FDG. METHODS: Forty‐eight patients with a clinical suspicion of local residual disease at least 3 months after completion of radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for a T2‐4 laryngeal carcinoma, along with an indication for direct laryngoscopy, were included. They received MET‐PET and FDG‐PET prior to the direct laryngoscopy. One senior nuclear medicine physician assessed both the FDG‐PET and MET‐PET images visually for the degree of abnormal uptake. The gold standard was a biopsy‐proven recurrence 12 months after PET. The nuclear physician had no access to the medical charts and was blinded to the results of the other PET. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of FDG was 77.3% and the specificity 56.0% after the conservative reading, with these values equalling 54.5% and 76.0% for MET. The positive predictive value of FDG was 60.7% and the negative predictive value 73.7%. The PPV of MET was 66.7%, and the NPV was 65.5%. The McNemar test within diseased (sensitivity comparison) shows a p‐value of 0.125, and the McNemar test within non‐diseased (specificity comparison) shows a P‐value of 0.180. CONCLUSION: MET‐PET is not superior to FDG‐PET in terms of identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7380028
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73800282020-07-27 Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy? Wedman, Jan Pruim, Jan van der Putten, Lisa Hoekstra, Otto S. de Bree, Remco van Dijk, Boukje A. C. van der Laan, Bernard F. A. M. Clin Otolaryngol Original Articles OBJECTIVE: 18F FDG‐PET is superior to other imaging techniques in revealing residual laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy. Unfortunately, its specificity is low, due to FDG uptake in inflammation and in anaerobic conditions. PET imaging with the amino acid‐based radiopharmaceutical C11‐methionine (MET) should be less influenced by post‐radiation conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of MET in diagnosing recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy as compared to 18F‐FDG. METHODS: Forty‐eight patients with a clinical suspicion of local residual disease at least 3 months after completion of radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for a T2‐4 laryngeal carcinoma, along with an indication for direct laryngoscopy, were included. They received MET‐PET and FDG‐PET prior to the direct laryngoscopy. One senior nuclear medicine physician assessed both the FDG‐PET and MET‐PET images visually for the degree of abnormal uptake. The gold standard was a biopsy‐proven recurrence 12 months after PET. The nuclear physician had no access to the medical charts and was blinded to the results of the other PET. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of FDG was 77.3% and the specificity 56.0% after the conservative reading, with these values equalling 54.5% and 76.0% for MET. The positive predictive value of FDG was 60.7% and the negative predictive value 73.7%. The PPV of MET was 66.7%, and the NPV was 65.5%. The McNemar test within diseased (sensitivity comparison) shows a p‐value of 0.125, and the McNemar test within non‐diseased (specificity comparison) shows a P‐value of 0.180. CONCLUSION: MET‐PET is not superior to FDG‐PET in terms of identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-11-18 2019-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7380028/ /pubmed/30315624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13242 Text en © © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Otolaryngology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,provided the original work is properly cited. Open access.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Wedman, Jan
Pruim, Jan
van der Putten, Lisa
Hoekstra, Otto S.
de Bree, Remco
van Dijk, Boukje A. C.
van der Laan, Bernard F. A. M.
Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
title Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
title_full Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
title_fullStr Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
title_full_unstemmed Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
title_short Is C‐11 Methionine PET an alternative to 18‐F FDG‐PET for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
title_sort is c‐11 methionine pet an alternative to 18‐f fdg‐pet for identifying recurrent laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy?
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7380028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30315624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13242
work_keys_str_mv AT wedmanjan isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy
AT pruimjan isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy
AT vanderputtenlisa isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy
AT hoekstraottos isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy
AT debreeremco isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy
AT vandijkboukjeac isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy
AT vanderlaanbernardfam isc11methioninepetanalternativeto18ffdgpetforidentifyingrecurrentlaryngealcancerafterradiotherapy