2-Deoxy-2[F-18]FDG-PET for Detection of Recurrent Laryngeal Carcinoma after Radiotherapy: Interobserver Variability in Reporting

Purpose: To evaluate accuracy and interobserver variability in the assessment of 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detection of recurrent laryngeal carcinoma after radiotherapy. Procedures: Eleven experienced nuclear physicians from eight centres assessed 30 FDG-PET scans on the appearance of local recurrence (negative/equivocal/positive). Conservative (equivocal analysed as negative) and sensitive (equivocal analysed as positive) assessment strategies were compared to the reference standard (recurrence within 6months after PET). Results: Seven patients had proven recurrences. For the conservative and sensitive strategy, the mean sensitivity was 87% and 97%, specificity 81% and 63%, positive predictive values 61% and 46% and negative predictive values 96% and 99%, respectively. Interobserver variability showed a reasonable relation in comparison to the reference standard (kappa = 0.55). Conclusions: FDG-PET has acceptable interobserver agreement and yields good negative predictive value for detection of recurrent laryngeal carcinoma. It could therefore be used as first diagnostic step and may reduce futile invasive diagnostics

Impact of combined 18F-FDG PET/CT in head and neck tumours

To compare the interobserver agreement and degree of confidence in anatomical localisation of lesions using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and 18F-FDG PET alone in patients with head and neck tumours. A prospective study of 24 patients (16 male, eight female, median age 59 years) with head and neck tumours was undertaken. 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed for staging purposes. 2D images were acquired over the head and neck area using a GE Discovery LS™ PET/CT scanner. 18F-FDG PET images were interpreted by three independent observers. The observers were asked to localise abnormal 18F-FDG activity to an anatomical territory and score the degree of confidence in localisation on a scale from 1 to 3 (1=exact region unknown; 2=probable; 3=definite). For all 18F-FDG-avid lesions, standardised uptake values (SUVs) were also calculated. After 3 weeks, the same exercise was carried out using 18F-FDG PET/CT images, where CT and fused volume data were made available to observers. The degree of interobserver agreement was measured in both instances. A total of six primary lesions with abnormal 18F-FDG uptake (SUV range 7.2–22) were identified on 18F-FDG PET alone and on 18F-FDG PET/CT. In all, 15 nonprimary tumour sites were identified with 18F-FDG PET only (SUV range 4.5–11.7), while 17 were identified on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Using 18F-FDG PET only, correct localisation was documented in three of six primary lesions, while 18F-FDG PET/CT correctly identified all primary sites. In nonprimary tumour sites, 18F-FDG PET/CT improved the degree of confidence in anatomical localisation by 51%. Interobserver agreement in assigning primary and nonprimary lesions to anatomical territories was moderate using 18F-FDG PET alone (kappa coefficients of 0.45 and 0.54, respectively), but almost perfect with 18F-FDG PET/CT (kappa coefficients of 0.90 and 0.93, respectively). We conclude that 18F-FDG PET/CT significantly increases interobserver agreement and confidence in disease localisation of 18F-FDG-avid lesions in patients with head and neck cancers

Prospective evaluation of voice outcome during the first two years in male patients treated by radiotherapy or laser surgery for T1a glottic carcinoma

In this prospective cohort study, we assessed voice outcome in patients before and up to 2 years after treatment for early glottic cancer either by radiotherapy or by laser surgery; 106 male patients, treated for T1aN0M0 glottic cancer either by endoscopic laser surgery (n = 67) or by radiotherapy (n = 39), participated in the study. Patients’ voices were recorded and analysed pre-treatment and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment at their routine visit at the outpatient clinic. Average fundamental frequency (F0), percent jitter, percent shimmer and normalized noise energy (NNE) were determined. After 2 years, local control rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group and 97% in the laser surgery group. Larynx preservation rate was 95% after radiotherapy and 100% after laser surgery. Voice outcome recovers more quickly in patients treated with laser surgery in comparison to radiotherapy: 3 months after laser surgery there is no longer a difference with regard to normal voices except for the fundamental frequency, which remains higher pitched, even in the longer term. For patients treated with radiotherapy it takes longer for jitter, shimmer and NNE to become normal, where jitter remains significantly different from normal voices even after 2 years. According to these results, we believe that laser surgery is the first treatment of choice in the treatment of selected cases of T1a glottic carcinomas with good functional and oncological results

Outcome of radiotherapy in T1 glottic carcinoma: A population-based study

We evaluated the radiation outcome and prognostic factors in a population-based study of early (T1N0M0) glottic carcinoma. Survival parameters and prognostic factors were evaluated by uni- and multivariate analysis in 316 consecutive irradiated patients with T1 glottic carcinoma in the Comprehensive Cancer Center West region of the western Netherlands. Median follow-up was 70 months (range 1-190 months). Five and ten-year local control was 86 and 84%. Disease specific survival was 97% at 5 and 10 years. In multivariate analysis, pre-existent laryngeal hypertrophic laryngitis was the only predictive factor for local control (relative risk = 3.0, P = 0.02). Comorbidity was prognostic for overall survival. No factor was predictive for disease specific survival. Pre-existent laryngeal hypertrophic laryngitis is a new risk factor associated with reduced local control in T1 glottic carcinoma treated with radiotherapy

Contemporary management of cancer of the oral cavity

Oral cancer represents a common entity comprising a third of all head and neck malignant tumors. The options for curative treatment of oral cavity cancer have not changed significantly in the last three decades; however, the work up, the approach to surveillance, and the options for reconstruction have evolved significantly. Because of the profound functional and cosmetic importance of the oral cavity, management of oral cavity cancers requires a thorough understanding of disease progression, approaches to management and options for reconstruction. The purpose of this review is to discuss the most current management options for oral cavity cancers

Meta-analysis of the relation between European and American smokeless tobacco and oral cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is often referred to as a major contributor to oral cancer. In some regions, especially Southeast Asia, the risk is difficult to quantify due to the variety of products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients) and usage practices involved. In Western populations, the evidence of an increased risk in smokeless tobacco users seems unclear, previous reviews having reached somewhat differing conclusions. We report a detailed quantitative review of the evidence in American and European smokeless tobacco users, and compare our findings with previous reviews and meta-analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Following literature review a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 epidemiological studies published between 1920 and 2005 including tests for homogeneity and publication bias.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on 38 heterogeneous study-specific estimates of the odds ratio or relative risk for smokeless tobacco use, the random-effects estimate was 1.87 (95% confidence interval 1.40–2.48). The increase was mainly evident in studies conducted before 1980. No increase was seen in studies in Scandinavia. Restricting attention to the seven estimates adjusted for smoking and alcohol eliminated both heterogeneity and excess risk (1.02; 0.82–1.28). Estimates also varied by sex (higher in females) and by study design (higher in case-control studies with hospital controls) but more clearly in studies where estimates were unadjusted, even for age. The pattern of estimates suggests some publication bias. Based on limited data specific to never smokers, the random-effects estimate was 1.94 (0.88–4.28), the eight individual estimates being heterogeneous and based on few exposed cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco, as used in America or Europe, carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer. However, elevated risks in specific populations or from specific products cannot definitely be excluded.</p