Abstract
Head and neck cancers (HNC) include a variety of neoplasms that are traditionally associated with high morbidity and mortality. Patients with these malignancies, of which squamous cell cancer is the most common, require a multidisciplinary approach to determine optimal treatment and follow-up. Treatment depends on TNM staging, which is determined using a combination of objective findings including physical examination, endoscopies, and importantly cross-sectional imaging. CT and MR imaging are the mainstays of cross-sectional imaging and are used extensively to stage and characterize these tumors. The goals of appropriate imaging is to establish the extent and size of tumor, assess nodal disease in the neck, look for perineural spread, distinguish tumor recurrence from postoperative- or postradiation-related changes, and monitor response to treatment. Cross-sectional imaging supplements and complements anatomic and pathologic changes of the neck.
CT and MRI are both used to image HNC. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses, and these should be carefully considered before choosing the respective study. Other techniques such as MR perfusion, MR spectroscopy, and MR magnetization transfer have the ability to measure functional parameters such as tissue perfusion that can be integrated with other clinical and radiological information to assess disease progression. Imaging with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has been found to be superior to CT and MR alone. New applications including combined PET/CT and PET/MR provide additional anatomical localization detail to assess for tumor response to treatment, tumor progression, and distant metastasis as well as spot unknown primary carcinomas or synchronous second tumor. With the rise in HPV-related tumors, imaging techniques can be used to identify these patients. From methodological development, these morphologic investigations are making the critical transition to preclinical and clinical validating methods and eventually to widespread clinical tools.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Head and neck cancer
- Computed tomography
- Perfusion CT
- Perfusion-weighted MRI
- Diffusion-weighted imaging
- Apparent diffusion coefficient
- Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)
- Positron emission tomography (PET)
- Squamous cell carcinoma
- Head and neck neoplasms
- MR
- Staging
- Magnetic resonance imaging
- PET/CT
- Unknown primary
- PET/MR
- Synchronous second tumor
13.1 Head and Neck Cancer
Cancers of the head and neck (HNC) are common neoplasms that account for about 5 % of malignancies worldwide. They are the fifth most common cancer condition [1]. HNC include squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), basal cell carcinoma, many sarcomas, melanoma, and other tumors arising from a variety of sites. The primary risk factors for HNSCC in American men and women include tobacco use, alcohol use, and more recently HPV infection.
In 2015, approximately 59,340 new diagnoses and 11,260 deaths are expected in the United States due to head and neck cancer [2]. Patients with HNSCC require a careful evaluation and a multidisciplinary team approach to determine optimal management. Treatment planning depends to a large extent on TNM staging, which is evaluated with physical examination, endoscopies, and cross-sectional imaging [3].
Radiologic imaging with CT and MR imaging is extensively utilized to evaluate soft-tissue masses of the head and neck. These masses are diagnosed and staged primarily on the basis of physical examination and CT and MRI findings [4–6]. Imaging has become a vital and integral tool in characterizing and staging of malignant tumors involving the head and neck. CT and MRI provide essential information about the deep extension of clinically detected masses and also delineate additional clinically unsuspected masses [7, 8]. Accurate staging at the time of diagnosis is critical for selection of appropriate treatment strategy. Precise prediction of the extent of primary tumors, cervical lymph node status, and distant metastatic spread is important for treatment planning and prognosis. The goals of imaging in patients with head and neck cancer are to establish tumor extent and size, to assess nodal disease, for possible perineural tumor spread, and to distinguish recurrent tumor form posttreatment changes [9]. Imaging is also essential to follow up the patients after various therapeutic options available for the treatment are exercised, including surgery with or without radical dissection, lymph node dissections of various severities, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and various combinations of all these [10]. Accurate evaluation of all these factors prior to treatment helps guide surgical extent or radiation porta, minimizing locoregional treatment failure.
CT and MRI are the most commonly utilized imaging modalities for assessment of primary malignant tumor, local extension, and lymph nodal involvement. They are also the first imaging modalities for monitoring the result and response of surgical intervention, radiation or chemotherapy, or combinations thereof. In this goal cross-sectional imaging supplements and compliments the physical examination by delineating the anatomy and pathological changes of the neck. Complex anatomic structures and regions, such as the orbit, skull base, paranasal sinuses, deep spaces of the suprahyoid and infrahyoid neck, larynx, and lymph nodes, require that the radiologist be familiar with the imaging modalities available and their appropriate applications.
CT and MRI complement each other; certain conditions are better studied with one than the other. Various strengths and weaknesses of each modality should be carefully considered when selecting them for tumor assessment and follow-up [11]. The interpretation of CT and MRI should be based on the patient’s history, physical findings, comorbidities, and previous procedures that may influence the structures visualized. Comparison with previous imaging is also essential to reliably understand the present condition.
13.2 Anatomic CT
Computerized tomography (CT) was introduced about 40 years ago and has greatly enhanced clinical care. Its advantages include its speed, lower cost, and wide distribution in most medical centers. CT is excellent at delineating tumor extent and nodal disease. In head and neck tumors such as HNSCC, CT has helped in tumor staging, which dictated patient management and related to prognosis [8]. Helical multi-detector computerized tomography (MDCT) with 16 and now 64 detector rings has rapidly now become the new industry standard in CT imaging. This along with dynamic acquisition typically has resulted in reduced scan time, thinner sections, increased anatomic coverage, and better resolution of reformatted images and three-dimensional reconstruction. Section thickness as low as half an mm can be achieved along with acquisition of up to eight images per second [12, 13]. This has greatly enhanced the sensitivity and specificity of CT scan in head and neck cancer for primary staging as well as post-therapeutic follow-up (Fig. 13.1).
The anatomic coverage of a neck CT should include the base of the skull and should extend up to the medial end of the clavicles with 4 mm thick slices. Additionally, 2 mm slices and higher zoom factor may be employed at the region of interest using reconstructed spiral data. In patients with significant dental hardware, additional angulated images may also be obtained for better anatomic coverage avoiding streak artifacts.
CT has proved to be a modality of choice for initial work-up of a patient suspected of head and neck cancer and proved excellent for initial locoregional and lymph nodal staging and for post-therapeutic follow-up.
13.3 CT Perfusion
Computerized tomography perfusion (CTP) can be used to facilitate the evaluation of functional parameters such as tissue perfusion in many cancers. This can be integrated with morphologic information derived from conventional CT techniques. It is a dynamic contrast-enhanced technique which is used for quantitative assessment of tissue microcirculation [14], and it has recently been rediscovered as a promising noninvasive tool for evaluation of the microcirculatory changes associated with several neoplasms, including cancers of the head and neck [15–18]. CTP technique is based on the central volume principle, which relates blood flow, blood volume, and MTT as: blood flow (BF) = blood volume (BV)/MTT. Faggioni et al. have shown that BV, BF, and permeability-surface area product are significantly higher, whereas MTT is significantly reduced in head and neck tumor (both primary neoplasm and lymph node metastases, whenever present) compared with normal tissue and with muscle taken as a reference (p < 0.01); moreover, the alteration of CT perfusion parameters correlates with histopathologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in all cases [15]. Ash et al. have shown that CT perfusion parameters of the neck (BF and BV) correlate positively with microvessel density (MVD) of endoscopic biopsy specimens obtained from primary tumor sites of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) [19]. Although, it seems unlikely that CT perfusion will replace biopsy for pretreatment assessment of MVD, CT perfusion has the potential to monitor treatment response by enabling noninvasive assessment of alterations in MVD and acting as a surrogate marker for tumor oxygenation (Fig. 13.2).
13.4 Anatomic Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Following the introduction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 30 years ago, its use has enabled a quantum jump in diagnostic imaging of head and neck neoplasms. Early investigations highlighted the ability of MRI to differentiate neoplastic from inflammatory lesions. MRI provides essential information about the deep extension of clinically detected masses and also delineates additional clinically unsuspected lesions [7]. It has added value for detection of soft-tissue extent, marrow involvement, and perineural spread [20]. The excellent tissue characterization and noninvasive multiplanar imaging capability of MR imaging result in more accurate diagnosis of neoplastic and benign tumors of the head and neck [21–25]. MRI is reported to be superior to CT in detecting tumor extensions, in separation of edema from the tumor, and in evaluation of possible bone marrow invasion. Dynamic MRI is also utilized to plan and evaluate radiotherapy of head and neck cancer [26].
MRI of the neck should be tailored for the anatomic region and processed under evaluation. A standard head coil usually suffices for relatively localized examinations of the suprahyoid region and base of the skull, whereas, the infrahyoid neck requires a neck coil. Axial, coronal, and sagittal sequences are essential. Unenhanced axial T1-weighted images display anatomic relationships and can detect lesions (e.g., lymph node lesions) embedded within fat. T1-weighted coronal images can define the false vocal cords, true vocal cords, laryngeal ventricle, and floor of the mouth [27, 28].
T1-weighted sagittal images provide helpful information about the preepiglottic space and nasopharynx. T2-weighted transaxial images characterize tissue, detect tumor within the muscle, demonstrate cysts, and assist differentiation of post-therapy fibrosis from recurrent tumor [29].
Gradient moment nulling, flow compensation, cardiac gating, and presaturation pulses are some techniques used to minimize motion artifacts [27]. Gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced images improve delineation of margins in many lesions. Fat-suppression techniques, such as short tau inversion recovery (STIR) and frequency-selected fat suppression, may improve the conspicuity of soft-tissue lesions embedded in fatty tissue by selectively diminishing the hyperintensity of fat on T1-weighted images [30] (Fig. 13.3). Postcontrast T1-weighted images usually best delineate the tumor margins [31], and this may be further improved with fat saturation (fat-sat), which, however, frequently results in artifacts and image degradation [32]. However, the normal enhancement of the aerodigestive mucosa may conceal small mucosal tumors.
Early investigators credited MR imaging with greater precision in head and neck imaging than was warranted [33]. Conventional MR imaging did not have the last word in histological specificity, early detection of primary malignancy, and differentiating neoplastic from inflammatory lymph nodes. In spite of early enthusiasm, MR imaging did not eliminate the need for biopsies or aspirations of lesions. Spin echo imaging is still the mainstay of MR imaging, but now various new techniques hold promise for the future of head and neck imaging [34].
13.5 MR Diffusion
MR diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has been traditionally used to evaluate ischemia of the brain parenchyma. Its utility in evaluating pathologies outside the calvarium has recently been recognized, specifically, extracranial neoplastic disease. Hypercellular tissue within malignant tumors will show low ADC values [35, 36], while tissue changes such as edema, inflammation, fibrosis, and necrosis show low cellularity and hence higher ADC values [34] (Fig. 13.4). Diffusion-weighted imaging of oropharynx can easily be performed at the time of MR conventional imaging and adds approximately only 1–2 min of additional time to the examination. Localization and extent of primary squamous cell cancer, one of the commonest malignant neoplasms of head and neck, is usually well defined by CT or conventional MRI. High sensitivities and specificities, better than CT or conventional MRI, are also reported in staging of neck lymph nodes in squamous cell carcinoma [37, 38]. Whole-body DWI at high b-values with ADC mapping is technically feasible and improves assessment of metastatic spread in routine MR examinations. The characterization of neck lymph nodes remains a difficult issue with anatomy-based imaging methods, and DWI may be useful in this regard [39, 40]. DW imaging performed with ADC (b0–1000) values had higher accuracy than turbo spin-echo MR imaging in nodal staging, providing added value in the detection of subcentimeter nodal metastases [40].
13.6 MR Perfusion
MR perfusion is used to evaluate dynamic microscopic blood flow changes through a region of interest. The change in tissue signal intensity on MRI can be measured during a dynamic contrast infusion. This is used to generate blood flow, blood volume, and transit time parameters within areas of interest. Perfusion characteristics of tissue demonstrate changes in blood flow or volume of the head and neck lesions depending on underlying pathologic processes [34]. This technique has been previously studied in characterizing brain ischemia, particularly in identifying infarcted tissue versus tissue at risk [41]. Changes in perfusion characteristics are also demonstrated in neoplastic tissue (Fig. 13.5). Generally, these findings may not add substantial additional information regarding tumor extent at the diagnosis. However, such imaging may be of benefit in qualitative analysis of tumor tissue. Specifically, additional recent studies have demonstrated that squamous cell carcinomas of the upper aerodigestive tract with increased blood volume/flow are more chemosensitive than other lesions with relative decreased perfusion parameters. This is likely due to relative increased oxygenation and metabolism of such lesions [17]. Such perfusion techniques could be particularly useful in determining which patients would benefit from such medical treatment, as opposed to surgical therapies which may not always preserve organ function.
An additional area of interest is in regard to tumor recurrence or regression. Conventional MRI or CT may simply demonstrate increased contrast enhancement within the treated neck. However, morphologic changes in tissue appearance (such as increase in size or nodularity) may not be well demonstrated on early posttreatment conventional imaging. Recent studies have concluded that for recurrent oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinomas, perfusion parameters are altered. Specifically, BV and BF within recurrent tumor tissue are elevated in comparison to therapy-altered tissue, with corresponding decreases in transit time [42]. Perfusion imaging, like diffusion imaging, adds little time to either conventional MRI or CT examinations and can also be obtained noninvasively [43].
13.7 MR Magnetization Transfer
MR Magnetization transfer (MT) technique is based on the principle that the selective magnetization of protons associated with macromolecules may be transferred to the water protons that constitutes the MT image. A strong MT effect is observed where an efficient transfer mechanism exists between the two proton populations. It may be a useful technique for differentiating enhancing lesions from background tissue and defining poorly enhancing lesions. This is exploited to improve contrast between mass lesions that demonstrate an MT effect and background tissue like fat that does not [44]. Use of MT can improve contrast between head and neck lesions and background tissues. MT is shown to improve depiction of enhancing lesions adjacent to tissues with a strong MT effect [45]. MT can also aid unenhanced MR imaging in the delineation of tumors or lymph nodes in the parotid gland. MT is not indicated for cystic lesions, because they are generally well shown on a T2-weighted image or for cervical lymphadenopathy within lipoid tissue, because that has natural tissue contrast on conventional MRI [45].
However, MT has not enjoyed widespread application in head and neck imaging, partly because conventional imaging usually provides sufficient delineation of most primary lesions and lymphadenopathy.
13.8 MR Spectroscopy
Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides a noninvasive method for evaluation of various diseases of head and neck independent of the anatomic information provided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [46]. 1H-MR spectroscopy has the potential to assess biochemical composition and hence identify characteristics that could indicate malignant progression. It is widely accepted that cancer progression is accompanied by intracellular biochemical changes. It has the unique ability to analyze the tissue at the molecular level by evaluating the presence of specific metabolites. This is especially helpful to characterize lesions that have equivocal features on standard anatomic imaging. Early metastatic infiltration of nonenlarged lymph nodes or residual malignant disease in patients undergoing treatment for malignant process may also have normal or ambiguous appearance on routine anatomic CT or MR imaging [47].
In the case of HNSCC, it has been shown that 1H-MR spectroscopy has the potential to differentiate between normal and malignant tissue with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity [46, 48–51] (Fig. 13.6). MR spectroscopy of head and neck cancer and lymph nodes helps to differentiate nonmalignant from malignant tumors and lymph nodes and also helps to differentiate between residual malignancies from postradiation changes. Elevation of the Cho/Cr ratio appears to be a consistent finding for HNSCCA and has also been identified in analysis of various SCCA cell cultures and SCCA containing cervical metastatic lymph nodes [48]. Higher levels of choline metabolites in tumors are believed to be due to increased cell proliferation and biosynthesis, while reduced creatine resonance likely reflects increased energy metabolism within tumors [52].
For prognostication, MR spectroscopy has the potential to contribute to an accurate and early prediction of tumor behavior and response to treatment in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region. Using the choline-to-creatine (3.2/3.0 ppm) and the 1.3/0.9 ppm spectral intensity ratios (signal due to lipid or lactic acid), a sensitivity of 83 % and a specificity of 82 % were obtained in predicting which head and neck cancer patients would fail treatment [53].
Tumor hypoxia is a common phenomenon in solid tumors and has been shown to adversely affect the treatment outcomes in patients with head and neck (HN) squamous cell carcinoma treated with conventional therapy [54–56]. Resonance from lactate (Lac, 1.3 ppm) may be a marker for tumor oxygenation and may help staging and was thought to have potential for staging and monitoring the treatment [57]. However, in a recent work, the lactate SI did not correlate with tumor pO2, treatment response, or locoregional control in a series of 62 patients with resectable stage IV HN squamous cell carcinoma undergoing induction chemotherapy [58]. Additional research is needed to refine this technique.
13.9 Positron Emission Tomography
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a technique that has been found to be superior to conventional imaging work-ups such as CT and MRI, which were previously the mainstay work-up for diagnosis, staging, and post-therapeutic follow-up in patients with head and neck cancer [59–61]. 18FDG-PET has higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting lymph node metastases than CT or MRI. It improves detection of occult cervical lymphatic disease and distant metastasis and assists in localization of unknown primary carcinoma of the head and neck region [62–66]. 18FDG-PET is considered superior to CT and MRI for local staging and detection of malignant characteristics in cervical lymph nodal enlargements [59, 60, 67–70]. It has a high negative predictive value (NPV) of approximately 90 %, which is more than any other imaging modality. There is growing evidence that 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is increasingly accepted as a valuable imaging tool in evaluation of patients with head and neck carcinomas [62–65, 71–74]. The potential clinical applications include pretreatment staging, treatment monitoring, and evaluation of the previously treated patients [75] (Fig. 13.7).
13.10 PET/CT
The use of PEt alone provides poor quality of anatomical localization of the primary tumor, and metastases on 18FDG-PET can have negative impact on staging and management [76]. The poor spatial resolution of 18FDG-PET is a limiting factor, especially within the intricate anatomy of the head and neck [69]. Combined PET/CT scanners overcome these limitations by fusing the anatomic data of CT with functional data of 18FDG-PET [77–79]. In PET/CT, the most relevant additional effect is that the CT data adds specificity to 18FDG-PET data [80, 81]. The utility of PET/CT has been evaluated extensively in head and neck neoplasms. Several of these studies showed that the integrated combination of CT and 18FDG-PET is more accurate than either of the modalities alone for detection and anatomic localization of head and neck cancer, thus enhancing the patient care [82–87]. PET/CT has been shown to have high NPV but poor PPV following treatment [88, 89]. Recently, the Hopkins Interpretation system was introduced as a five-point qualitative scale for evaluation of PET/CT and was found to predict overall survival [90]. The accuracy of integrated PET/CT is also more than 18FDG-PET and CT images viewed side by side [83, 91–94]. In one study, CT data improved the specificity of the images in approximately two-thirds of patients with lesions seen on 18FDG-PET images [95]. In some situations, such as very small disseminated pulmonary metastases, addition of CT is able to increase the specificity and also the sensitivity of PET/CT examination [81].
PET/CT can detect unknown primary tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract [96, 97]. PET/CT can detect primary squamous cell carcinoma in 30–50 % of patients presenting with an unknown primary tumor. PET/CT is generally performed after confirming the presence of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. It is usually performed before endoscopic biopsies to improve the tissue yield. This diagnostic yield can increase with PET/CT as it improves the anatomic localization of areas of abnormal FDG uptake [98, 99]. PET/CT is also utilized for determining response to chemotherapy and/or radiation. Comparison of pretreatment standard uptake values (SUVs) to SUVs 2 weeks into treatment can allow measurement of the speed of response and also the sensitivity of the tumor to the treatment technique [100]. Poorly responsive tumors can then be treated to higher effective tumor doses of radiation, or surgery can be performed. Initial results suggest that PET/CT can be used to assist in defining primary site and nodal tumor targets for radiation therapy approaches. PET/CT is useful adjuvant to clinical staging of squamous cell carcinoma, and its utilization will increase with advancement of technology.
13.11 PET/MR
PET/MR is a new modality that has started to become more widely distributed and allows for increased anatomical localization of lesions like PET/CT. It may provide a number of advantages over PET/CT including simultaneous imaging, decreased radiation, and better soft-tissue resolution including perineural spread and infiltration of fascia and vessels [101, 102]. These characteristics have been demonstrated when imaging the head and neck region [103]. The disadvantages of PET/MR are few but include difficulty with attenuation correction. In addition, disadvantages that broadly apply to MRI such as missing small lung metastasis are also applicable to PET/MR [104].
Several centers are beginning to develop protocols and are exploring application for PET/MR in head and neck cancers. One study retrospectively compared PET/MRI fusion with PET and MRI alone and found increased sensitivity and specificity for tumor staging [105]. However, others have found no advantages in TNM staging as compared to PET/CT or MR alone [106–109]. It remains to be seen if PET/MR will become standard of care for diagnosing and tracking neoplasms in the head and neck.
13.12 Local Tumor Detection and Staging
The most important information required before surgery for proper therapeutic planning is the accurate knowledge of location, size, extent, the depth of invasion of the primary tumor, and its relation to the surrounding structures [69, 110]. Large primary tumors of the oral cavity or the oropharynx can be detected easily by clinical examination. The sensitivity of FDG-PET was considered even higher than CT or MRI for detection of primary tumors [111]. The sensitivity of FDG-PET for detection of primary carcinoma ranged from 88 to 100 % [61, 63, 112, 113]. Both MRI and CT can provide additional information about tumor extension into the deep spaces, the relationship to adjacent structures, and bone infiltration needed for treatment planning. Sensitivity of MRI earlier was thought to be less than that of CT [62, 112]. However, with increased technical improvements, it is thought to be comparable to CT [114]. Scattering of focal uptake in primary oropharyngeal tumors can lead to overestimation of the extent of primary disease, and physiologic uptake in oropharynx may obscure small primary tumors in oropharynx [115]. Thus FDG-PEt alone cannot provide the detailed information needed for planning of tumor resection, but fusion of FDG-PET data with CT data in PET/CT can overcome this limitation.
Sensitivity of CT, especially in oropharynx, can be compromised by streak artifacts from dental hardware, especially if the size of the tumor is small [114]. However, high metabolism on FDG-PET would indicate the possibility of an underlying mass (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10). Earlier, the sensitivity of MRI was thought to be less than that of CT [62, 112], but with increased technical improvements, it is thought to be comparable to CT [114]. Some of the earlier reports showed that FDG-PET was more accurate than CT or MRI for local detection of smaller tumors [62, 112, 113]. But some more recent studies have shown that CT and FDG-PET are equivalent in local staging [61, 116].
CT detects lytic foci of cortical mandibular invasion, which are best accomplished with a dedicated dental protocol. The reported sensitivity and specificity for standard neck CT in detection of mandibular involvement are 96 % and 87 %, respectively [117] (Fig. 13.11). However, a later study demonstrated a 93 % accuracy of MRI in detecting mandibular involvement in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer [118], indicating that CT may not be necessary to evaluate for cortical invasion. MRI with contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-sat images provides satisfactory accuracy of tumor thickness. The presence of malignant neoplasm adjacent to the neurovascular bundle is highly concerning for invasion. Tumors larger than 2 cm with aggressive margins and deep sublingual extension probably involve the neurovascular bundle [31]. Oral malignancies, especially of buccal spaces and retromolar trigone, are better visualized using the “puffed-cheek” CT technique, in which the patients perform a modified Valsalva maneuver during the scan distending the oral cavity by air [119].
Deep extension of nasopharyngeal cancer including the presence of skull base invasion, and intracranial spread is better evaluated with MRI than CT [120, 121]. Skull base invasion may occur through the neural foramina by perineural tumor spread, which primarily occurs after invasion of the pterygopalatine fossa, foramen ovale, and hypoglossal canal [122] (Fig. 13.12). Nonenhanced T1-weighted images are very well suited to evaluate perineural extension, revealing homogeneous gray mass of tumor against natural tissue contrast of T1 bright fat planes and bone marrow. Pre- and postcontrast T1-weighted MRI is very accurate in detection of subtle perineural tumor extension. Evaluation of possible perineural spread should be performed in all patients with facial paralysis and facial pain or numbness, because these symptoms may be the initial presentation of a head and neck malignancy [123, 124] (Fig. 13.13). Complementary direct coronal CT images with bone algorithm are recommended to evaluate subtle bone erosion which may escape detection by MRI.
Cartilage invasion by laryngeal and hypopharyngeal tumors is an important imaging finding because it automatically leads to a T4 stage [9]. The overall sensitivity is 82 %, overall specificity is 79 %, and overall negative predictive value of cartilage erosion on CT overall is 91 % [125]. Cartilage invasion on MRI shows high T2 signal intensity, a low-to-intermediate T1 signal, and postcontrast enhancement. However, due to frequent reactive inflammation, edema, and fibrosis, the MRI findings of cartilage invasion may frequently be false positive, resulting in a positive predictive value of only 68–71 % [126]. However, the advantages of MRI over CT for soft-tissue differentiation may be outweighed by motion artifacts. CT remains a valuable and frequently used screening modality for the larynx as it is fast and readily available.
Imaging studies cannot reliably distinguish benign from malignant salivary gland masses. MRI is the modality of choice for evaluation of parotid masses [21]. The real advantage of cross-sectional imaging is the ability to accurately reveal the location and extension of a tumor and to assess for perineural tumor spread. Magnetization transfer, dynamic imaging, and especially, diffusion imaging have shown promising results in detection of parotid malignancies [127].
The relationship of a tumor to the facial nerve is difficult to determine on MRI. However, the lateral margin of the retromandibular vein on cross-sectional imaging as a marker for the facial nerve has an accuracy of approximately 90 % [128]. A careful search for perineural tumor spread along the facial, auriculotemporal, and mandibular (V3) nerves should be undertaken on MRI scans in all patients with parotid masses [129].
Multiple series have been reported evaluating FDG-PET or PET/CT for patient with newly diagnosed HNSCC in the preoperative setting [60, 63, 130]. Sensitivity of FDG-PET was reported to be 98 % and of PET/CT 97 % for detection of primary tumors in patients with newly diagnosed HNSCC in a large series with 167 patients [69], higher than sensitivity of CT (86 %) and MRI (88 %) in the same patient set. Similar results were reported in numerous previous studies [59, 60, 63, 82, 85, 86, 130]. Even as sensitivity of PET/CT is considered higher than any morphological imaging for primary detection of HNSCC, the detailed anatomic information like depth of invasion and relationship of tumor to surrounding structures could not be provided only by the CT data of PET/CT. This may be due to inherent technical limitations of CT data set. With availability of multi-slice and multi-detector scanner capability in future with PET/CT, this situation may improve.
13.13 Lymph Node Staging
As most primary head and neck malignant neoplasm have a relatively high incidence of nodal metastasis, the staging of the neck is most important before a therapeutic plan is evolved. Staging can be done by a combination of clinical palpation and anatomic imaging. Nearly 40 % of all lymph nodes in the body are located above the clavicles. Lymph nodes are usually embedded within the fat planes that surround the vessels and separate major cervical muscles. Therefore, the fat of the neck provides an excellent natural contrast with the nodes on T1-weighted MR images [11]. Lymph nodes are divided into ten major groups [131] named for the structures in proximity to nodal location.
Patients with limited nodal spread of head and neck cancer are often treated surgically with radical neck dissection, while more extensive disease may additionally require adjuvant radiation therapy. Complete removal of all metastasis lymph nodes is essential for curative treatment. Lymph node metastases are common in patients with head and neck cancers. In up to 20–30 % of patients, lymph nodal spread of the disease is found, even though it may not be apparent on physical exam [132, 133]. The prognosis for these patients is strongly influenced by the presence of lymph node metastases [112]. Metastatic lymph node disease was found in approximately 50 % of the patients at the time of diagnosis [71, 114].
The imaging recommendations are mixed regarding an appropriate modality for evaluating lymphadenopathy [5, 134, 135]. CT is preferred because of its availability, speed, and excellent spatial resolution. Lymph nodes are usually embedded within fat, and fat is well portrayed by CT (Fig. 13.7). MRI has superior soft-tissue contrast and multiplanar capabilities. CT and MRI have a high rate of false-negative diagnoses, which can be explained by micrometastases within otherwise normal lymph nodes [32, 136]. The reported sensitivity for CT in detection of metastatic lymph nodes is from 67 to 90 % [32, 71, 136–138] and for MRI is from 71 to 91 % [32, 65, 71, 112, 114, 136]. The reported sensitivities of PET for nodal disease range from 67 to 91 % [62, 65, 71, 72, 113, 114, 116, 137, 138]. Both FDG-PET and PET/CT have technical resolution limitations of 4–5 mm and were unable to detect lymph metastases smaller than 4–5 mm, contributing to false-negative results [139–141]. The reported specificity of FDG-PET ranges from 88 to 100 % [65, 71, 72, 84, 113, 137]. The specificity value for CT is 38–97 % and for MRI is 48–94 % [32, 71, 137, 142]. False-positive FDG-PET findings may be primarily due to its inability to discriminate between inflammatory process and tumor infiltration [111]. This is because FDG is not a tumor-specific tracer but a metabolic marker, and hence various inflammatory processes can lead to increased FDG uptake, potentially returning false-positive results [143]. However, a practical benefit of employing PET/CT in presurgical evaluation for lymph node staging in patient with HNSCC is improved imaging staging for the expert and also a nonexpert interpreter [84]. PET/CT imaging is also reported to reduce equivocal head and neck image interpretations and increase evaluator confidence [144]. Combining structural information with morphological imaging like CT and metabolic information with functional imaging like FDG-PET with coregistered PET/CT is a method of choice for lymph node imaging in the future.
13.14 Distant Metastases
Distant metastasis to other organs and distant lymph nodes from HNSCC is generally a late event and usually represents an incurable disease [145]. The lung is the most common site of distant spread; however, distant bone metastasis can also occur in case of other widespread metastatic disease [146, 147] and can cause severe local morbidity at the metastatic site [148]. The reported incidence for distant bone metastases in HNSCC ranges from 17 to 31 % [149–151]. Apart from the lungs, screening for distant metastases is routinely not performed in initial staging of patients with HNSCC [146, 152]. However, some studies have shown FD-PET to be valuable in detecting distant metastasis in advanced HNSCC, suggesting a role for whole-body FDG-PET scanning, including lungs and bones for initial staging [153–155].
PET/CT may be performed in squamous cell carcinoma to evaluate for possible occult distant metastases to the lungs or bones [137] (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10). The presence of pulmonary metastases upstages a patient from M0 to M1 and alters treatment regimen. Routine imaging work-up for patient with squamous cell carcinoma pulmonary includes conventional radiography of the chest at most institutions. Chest CT is performed in patients with advanced stage disease. A solitary nodule on CT scan may represent a metastasis or a granuloma. PET would be helpful in this evaluation as a FDG-positive nodule would likely be metastatic and may require biopsy. An FDG-negative nodule may likely indicate a granuloma.
13.15 Unknown Primary Tumor
The incidence of unknown primary tumors in the head and neck region ranges overall from 3 to 7 % of all head and neck cancers including HNSCC [64, 67, 142, 156–162]. Apart from the routine physical examination, the evaluation includes fiber-optic laryngoscopy/nasopharyngoscopy, panendoscopy, and morphological imaging including CT and MRI and directed biopsy [156, 160, 161]. More recently, transcervical and intra-oral ultrasound has shown promise in detecting the primary lesion [163, 164]. The areas most likely to harbor an occult primary, such as the tonsil, tongue, base, piriform fossa, and postnasal space, should be thoroughly evaluated with physical examination and office-based endoscopies [161]. Focused morphological imaging with CT and MRI looking for evidence of primary as well as additional areas of lymphadenopathy is also performed. Further management is often a combination of surgery and radiotherapy; however, this depends on the primary site of the disease as well as the treating center [165, 166]. In spite of thorough clinical, endoscopic, and morphological imaging, 1–2 % of head and neck cancer patients will not have a primary site detected [167, 168].
An important application of PET imaging may be in patients with nodal disease and unknown primary tumor—the primary site has been found in 10–60 % of cases when conventional imaging and clinical investigations have failed [9]. FDG-PET is generally more sensitive than morphological imaging in patients with unknown sites of the primary carcinoma [169, 170]. However, it is also associated with false-positive findings in up to 11 % of these cases [169, 171]. Tumors of oral cavity account for a majority of cases with unknown primary and can generally be detected by clinical examination. However, in the head and neck regions with lower sensitively for clinical examinations and morphological imaging, the role of FDG-PET and PET/CT becomes more evident [114].
Tumor detection rate of about 31 % of primary tumors is reported in patients presenting with unknown primary [162]. A few retrospective studies suggest FDG-PET detection rates of 24–27 % for an occult head and neck primary carcinoma [64, 172]. Another study reported a low rate of true-positive scan (33 %) but a high rate of true-negative scans (88 %) [173], suggesting that negative FDG-PET or PET/CT helps to rule out a primary site (Fig. 13.14). This is complicated by the fact that false-positive reports are reported in large lymph nodes up to 20 mm in size [136, 137] or in necrotic lymph nodes. PET/CT serves as a valuable clinical tool for occult metastatic disease of the head and neck, most commonly HNSCC and synchronous primary tumors.
13.16 Synchronous Second Tumor
Patients with head and neck tumors also have a high incidence of secondary tumors of the aerodigestive tract (estimated at approximately 8 %), and PET identifies synchronous primary neoplasms that are missed on conventional imaging. The incidence for metastatic spread to lungs in patients with HNSCC is low, but there is also a high incidence of second primary tumor in patients with head and neck cancer, with detectable lung lesion [174]. A few previous studies have shown a high sensitivity of 100 % and positive predictive value of 85 % for FDG-PET to differentiate a malignant from a benign pulmonary lesion [153, 175]. Due to its ability to conduct whole-body imaging, PET/CT can be useful for detection of distant metastases and second primary cancer (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10) [176, 177]. PET/CT can serve as an excellent screening tool for distant metastatic disease or a synchronous primary tumor in the lungs [162].
13.17 HPV
The recent rise of head and neck cancers related to the HPV has resulted in investigations to identify these patients. They are more likely to be younger, male, nonsmokers, and nondrinkers [178]. HPV-associated cancers also carry a better prognosis. Imaging findings have been studied in this population to better identify this subset of patients. HPV+ tumors have more likely to have lower tumor volumes and glycolytic indices on PET/CT [13, 179–181]. These have been found to be predictive of tumor recurrence and overall survival [182–186]. HPV status in combination with posttreatment PET/CT further increases the negative predictive value for recurrence and may allow for less frequent surveillance [187–190].
In conclusion, morphological imaging techniques are crucial for therapy planning in head and neck neoplasms. The highest sensitivity and optimal anatomic information of the local tumor site for local staging are provided by MRI. MRI, CT, and PET are similar for detection of abnormal and pathologic lymph nodes. However, in case of equivocal findings by MRI or CT, PET provides relevant information for determining the extent of surgical neck dissection. FDG-PET and CT complement each of the strengths, providing additional accuracy for staging head and neck cancer and make a notable impact on clinical decision-making. The application of ultrasonography and PET/MR may further assist clinicians in staging of tumors as these technologies are further developed and studied.
References
Sankaranarayanan R, Masuyer E, Swaminathan R, Ferlay J, Whelan S. Head and neck cancer: a global perspective on epidemiology and prognosis. Anticancer Res. 1998;18(6B):4779–86.
American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2015. 2015.
Dammann F, Horger M, Mueller-Berg M, et al. Rational diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region: comparative evaluation of CT, MRI, and (18)FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(4):1326–31.
Som PM. Detection of metastasis in cervical lymph nodes: CT and MR criteria and differential diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158(5):961–9.
Madison MT, Remley KB, Latchaw RE, Mitchell SL. Radiologic diagnosis and staging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Radiol Clin North Am. 1994;32(1):163–81.
Close LG, Merkel M, Vuitch MF, Reisch J, Schaefer SD. Computed tomographic evaluation of regional lymph node involvement in cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Head Neck. 1989;11(4):309–17.
Stark DD, Moss AA, Gamsu G, Clark OH, Gooding GA, Webb WR. Magnetic resonance imaging of the neck. Part II: Pathologic findings. Radiology. 1984;150(2):455–61.
Gatenby RA, Mulhern Jr CB, Strawitz J, Moldofsky PJ. Comparison of clinical and computed tomographic staging of head and neck tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1985;6(3):399–401.
Rumboldt Z, Gordon L, Bonsall R, Ackermann S. Imaging in head and neck cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2006;7(1):23–34.
Gordin A, Golz A, Keidar Z, Daitzchman M, Bar-Shalom R, Israel O. The role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in head and neck malignant conditions: impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137(1):130–7.
Wippold 2nd FJ. Head and neck imaging: the role of CT and MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(3):453–65.
Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology. 2000;215(1):55–62.
Cantrell SC, Peck BW, Li G, Wei Q, Sturgis EM, Ginsberg LE. Differences in imaging characteristics of HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers: a blinded matched-pair analysis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(10):2005–9.
Miles KA. Tumour angiogenesis and its relation to contrast enhancement on computed tomography: a review. Eur J Radiol. 1999;30(3):198–205.
Faggioni L, Neri E, Bartolozzi C. CT perfusion of head and neck tumors: how we do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):62–9.
Gandhi D, Chepeha DB, Miller T, et al. Correlation between initial and early follow-up CT perfusion parameters with endoscopic tumor response in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the oropharynx treated with organ-preservation therapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(1):101–6.
Zima A, Carlos R, Gandhi D, Case I, Teknos T, Mukherji SK. Can pretreatment CT perfusion predict response of advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract treated with induction chemotherapy? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(2):328–34.
Rumboldt Z, Al-Okaili R, Deveikis JP. Perfusion CT for head and neck tumors: pilot study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(5):1178–85.
Ash L, Teknos TN, Gandhi D, Patel S, Mukherji SK. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: CT perfusion can help noninvasively predict intratumoral microvessel density. Radiology. 2009;251(2):422–8.
Weber AL, Romo L, Hashmi S. Malignant tumors of the oral cavity and oropharynx: clinical, pathologic, and radiologic evaluation. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2003;13(3):443–64.
Shah GV. MR imaging of salivary glands. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2004;14(4):777–808.
Rasch C, Keus R, Pameijer FA, et al. The potential impact of CT-MRI matching on tumor volume delineation in advanced head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;39(4):841–8.
van den Brekel MW, Castelijns JA, Croll GA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging vs. palpation of cervical lymph node metastasis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117(6):663–73.
van Dijke CF, van Waes PF. Head and neck tumors, MRI versus CT: a technology assessment pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 1992;14(3):235–9.
McCabe KJ, Rubinstein D. Advances in head and neck imaging. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2005;38(2):307–19. vii.
Baba Y, Furusawa M, Murakami R, et al. Role of dynamic MRI in the evaluation of head and neck cancers treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37(4):783–7.
Hudgins PA, Gussack GS. MR imaging in the management of extracranial malignant tumors of the head and neck. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(1):161–9.
Jabour BA, Lufkin RB, Hanafee WN. Magnetic resonance imaging of the larynx. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1990;2(4):60–8.
Glazer HS, Lee JK, Levitt RG, et al. Radiation fibrosis: differentiation from recurrent tumor by MR imaging. Radiology. 1985;156(3):721–6.
Hasso AN, Brown KD. Use of gadolinium chelates in MR imaging of lesions of the extracranial head and neck. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(1):247–63.
Lam P, Au-Yeung KM, Cheng PW, et al. Correlating MRI and histologic tumor thickness in the assessment of oral tongue cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(3):803–8.
Curtin HD, Ishwaran H, Mancuso AA, Dalley RW, Caudry DJ, McNeil BJ. Comparison of CT and MR imaging in staging of neck metastases. Radiology. 1998;207(1):123–30.
Yousem DM. Dashed hopes for MR imaging of the head and neck: the power of the needle. Radiology. 1992;184(1):25–6.
Shah GV, Wesolowski JR, Ansari SA, Mukherji SK. New directions in head and neck imaging. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(8):644–8.
Chenevert TL, Meyer CR, Moffat BA, et al. Diffusion MRI: a new strategy for assessment of cancer therapeutic efficacy. Mol Imaging. 2002;1(4):336–43.
Ross BD, Moffat BA, Lawrence TS, et al. Evaluation of cancer therapy using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Mol Cancer Ther. 2003;2(6):581–7.
Abdel Razek AA, Soliman NY, Elkhamary S, Alsharaway MK, Tawfik A. Role of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cervical lymphadenopathy. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(7):1468–77.
Sumi M, Sakihama N, Sumi T, et al. Discrimination of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(8):1627–34.
Hermans R, Vandecaveye V. Diffusion-weighted MRI in head and neck cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:126–7.
Vandecaveye V, De Keyzer F, Vander Poorten V, et al. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for nodal staging. Radiology. 2009;251(1):134–46.
Schaefer PW, Ozsunar Y, He J, et al. Assessing tissue viability with MR diffusion and perfusion imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(3):436–43.
Bisdas S, Baghi M, Smolarz A, et al. Quantitative measurements of perfusion and permeability of oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer, recurrent disease, and associated lymph nodes using first-pass contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies. Invest Radiol. 2007;42(3):172–9.
Schmitt P, Kotas M, Tobermann A, Haase A, Flentje M. Quantitative tissue perfusion measurements in head and neck carcinoma patients before and during radiation therapy with a non-invasive MR imaging spin-labeling technique. Radiother Oncol. 2003;67(1):27–34.
Niemi PT, Komu ME, Koskinen SK. Tissue specificity of low-field-strength magnetization transfer contrast imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1992;2(2):197–201.
Gillams AR, Fuleihan N, Grillone G, Carter AP. Magnetization transfer contrast MR in lesions of the head and neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(2):355–60.
Shah GV, Fischbein NJ, Patel R, Mukherji SK. Newer MR imaging techniques for head and neck. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2003;11(3):449–69. vi.
Shah GV, Gandhi D, Mukherji SK. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of head and neck neoplasms. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;15(2):87–94.
Mukherji SK, Schiro S, Castillo M, Kwock L, Muller KE, Blackstock W. Proton MR spectroscopy of squamous cell carcinoma of the extracranial head and neck: in vitro and in vivo studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18(6):1057–72.
Mukherji SK, Schiro S, Castillo M, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy of squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: in vitro characteristics. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(8):1485–90.
Castillo M, Kwock L, Mukherji SK. Clinical applications of proton MR spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(1):1–15.
King AD, Yeung DK, Ahuja AT, Leung SF, Tse GM, van Hasselt AC. In vivo proton MR spectroscopy of primary and nodal nasopharyngeal carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(3):484–90.
El-Sayed S, Bezabeh T, Odlum O, et al. An ex vivo study exploring the diagnostic potential of 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region. Head Neck. 2002;24(8):766–72.
Bezabeh T, Odlum O, Nason R, et al. Prediction of treatment response in head and neck cancer by magnetic resonance spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(8):2108–13.
Nordsmark M, Bentzen SM, Rudat V, et al. Prognostic value of tumor oxygenation in 397 head and neck tumors after primary radiation therapy. An international multi-center study. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77(1):18–24.
Le QT, Giaccia AJ. Therapeutic exploitation of the physiological and molecular genetic alterations in head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(12):4287–95.
Rudat V, Vanselow B, Wollensack P, et al. Repeatability and prognostic impact of the pretreatment pO(2) histography in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2000;57(1):31–7.
Star-Lack JM, Adalsteinsson E, Adam MF, et al. In vivo 1H MR spectroscopy of human head and neck lymph node metastasis and comparison with oxygen tension measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21(1):183–93.
Le QT, Koong A, Lieskovsky YY, et al. In vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy of lactate in patients with stage IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(4):1151–7.
Schmid DT, Stoeckli SJ, Bandhauer F, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography on the initial staging and therapy in locoregional advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Laryngoscope. 2003;113(5):888–91.
Stokkel MP, ten Broek FW, Hordijk GJ, Koole R, van Rijk PP. Preoperative evaluation of patients with primary head and neck cancer using dual-head 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Ann Surg. 2000;231(2):229–34.
Paulus P, Sambon A, Vivegnis D, et al. 18FDG-PET for the assessment of primary head and neck tumors: clinical, computed tomography, and histopathological correlation in 38 patients. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(10):1578–83.
Bailet JW, Abemayor E, Jabour BA, Hawkins RA, Ho C, Ward PH. Positron emission tomography: a new, precise imaging modality for detection of primary head and neck tumors and assessment of cervical adenopathy. Laryngoscope. 1992;102(3):281–8.
Hannah A, Scott AM, Tochon-Danguy H, et al. Evaluation of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography with histopathologic correlation in the initial staging of head and neck cancer. Ann Surg. 2002;236(2):208–17.
Jungehulsing M, Scheidhauer K, Damm M, et al. 2[F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a sensitive tool for the detection of occult primary cancer (carcinoma of unknown primary syndrome) with head and neck lymph node manifestation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123(3):294–301.
Laubenbacher C, Saumweber D, Wagner-Manslau C, et al. Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, MRI and endoscopy for staging head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas. J Nucl Med. 1995;36(10):1747–57.
Hafidh MA, Lacy PD, Hughes JP, Duffy G, Timon CV. Evaluation of the impact of addition of PET to CT and MR scanning in the staging of patients with head and neck carcinomas. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;263(9):853–9.
Keyes Jr JW, Watson Jr NE, Williams 3rd DW, Greven KM, McGuirt WF. FDG PET in head and neck cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(6):1663–9.
Macapinlac HA, Yeung HW, Larson SM. Defining the role of FDG PET in head and neck cancer. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2(6):311–6.
Roh JL, Yeo NK, Kim JS, et al. Utility of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in the preoperative staging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2007;43(9):887–93.
Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001;42 Suppl 5:1S–93.
Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hor G. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(9):1255–60.
Braams JW, Pruim J, Freling NJ, et al. Detection of lymph node metastases of squamous-cell cancer of the head and neck with FDG-PET and MRI. J Nucl Med. 1995;36(2):211–6.
Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR, et al. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(3):651–8.
Wong RJ, Lin DT, Schoder H, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(20):4199–208.
Mukherji SK, Bradford CR. Controversies: is there a role for positron-emission tomographic CT in the initial staging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(2):243–5.
Gil Z, Even-Sapir E, Margalit N, Fliss DM. Integrated PET/CT system for staging and surveillance of skull base tumors. Head Neck. 2007;29(6):537–45.
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(8):1369–79.
Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med. 2004;45 Suppl 1:4S–14.
Ha PK, Hdeib A, Goldenberg D, et al. The role of positron emission tomography and computed tomography fusion in the management of early-stage and advanced-stage primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132(1):12–6.
Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology. 2002;225(2):575–81.
von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology. 2006;238(2):405–22.
Branstetter BF, Blodgett TM, Zimmer LA, et al. Head and neck malignancy: is PET/CT more accurate than PET or CT alone? Radiology. 2005;235(2):580–6.
Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(21):4357–68.
Schwartz DL, Ford E, Rajendran J, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging for preradiotherapy staging of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(1):129–36.
Schoder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M, Kraus D, Larson SM. Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology. 2004;231(1):65–72.
Syed R, Bomanji JB, Nagabhushan N, et al. Impact of combined (18)F-FDG PET/CT in head and neck tumours. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(6):1046–50.
Fakhry N, Lussato D, Jacob T, Giorgi R, Giovanni A, Zanaret M. Comparison between PET and PET/CT in recurrent head and neck cancer and clinical implications. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;264(5):531–8.
Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S, 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 Imaging. 2011;38(11):2083–95.
Vainshtein JM, Spector ME, Stenmark MH, et al. Reliability of post-chemoradiotherapy F-18-FDG PET/CT for prediction of locoregional failure in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol. 2014;50(3):234–9.
Marcus C, Ciarallo A, Tahari AK, et al. Head and neck PET/CT: therapy response interpretation criteria (Hopkins criteria)-interreader reliability, accuracy, and survival outcomes. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(9):1411–6.
Keidar Z, Haim N, Guralnik L, et al. PET/CT using 18F-FDG in suspected lung cancer recurrence: diagnostic value and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(10):1640–6.
Kamel IR, Cohade C, Neyman E, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Incremental value of CT in PET/CT of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29(6):663–8.
Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2500–7.
Zimmer LA, Branstetter BF, Nayak JV, Johnson JT. Current use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(11):2029–34.
Reinartz P, Wieres FJ, Schneider W, Schur A, Buell U. Side-by-side reading of PET and CT scans in oncology: which patients might profit from integrated PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(11):1456–61.
Mukherji SK, Drane WE, Mancuso AA, Parsons JT, Mendenhall WM, Stringer S. Occult primary tumors of the head and neck: detection with 2-[F-18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose SPECT. Radiology. 1996;199(3):761–6.
Kole AC, Nieweg OE, Pruim J, et al. Detection of unknown occult primary tumors using positron emission tomography. Cancer. 1998;82(6):1160–6.
Sheikholeslam-zadeh R, Choufani G, Goldman S, Hassid S. Unknown primary detected by FDG-PET. A review of the present indications of FDG-PET in head and neck cancers. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 2002;56(1):77–82.
Gutzeit A, Antoch G, Kuhl H, et al. Unknown primary tumors: detection with dual-modality PET/CT--initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234(1):227–34.
Lowe VJ, Dunphy FR, Varvares M, 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(8):666–74.
Boss A, Weiger M, Wiesinger F. Future image acquisition trends for PET/MRI. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(3):201–11.
Queiroz MA, Huellner MW. PET/MR in cancers of the head and neck. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(3):248–65.
Boss A, Stegger L, Bisdas S, et al. Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR imaging in the head and upper neck area. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(7):1439–46.
Rasmussen JH, Fischer BM, Aznar MC, et al. Reproducibility of F-18-FDG PET uptake measurements in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma on both PET/CT and PET/MR. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1048):10.
Loeffelbein DJ, Souvatzoglou M, Wankerl V, et al. Diagnostic value of retrospective PET-MRI fusion in head-and-neck cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:10.
Kubiessa K, Purz S, Gawlitza M, et al. Initial clinical results of simultaneous F-18-FDG PET/MRI in comparison to F-18-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(4):639–48.
Heusch P, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt B, Sivanesapillai R, et al. Diagnostic value of retrospective PET-MRI fusion in head-and-neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:42–8.
Heusch P, Sproll C, Buchbender C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, F-18-FDG-PET/CT, and fused F-18-FDG-PET-MR images with DWI for the detection of cervical lymph node metastases of HNSCC. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(3):969–78.
Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Schneider M, et al. FDG PET/MR for lymph node staging in head and neck cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(7):1163–8.
Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231(2):305–32.
Kim MR, Roh JL, Kim JS, et al. Utility of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the preoperative staging of squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(5):633–8.
Rege S, Maass A, Chaiken L, et al. Use of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with extracranial head and neck cancers. Cancer. 1994;73(12):3047–58.
Wong WL, Chevretton EB, McGurk M, et al. A prospective study of PET-FDG imaging for the assessment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1997;22(3):209–14.
Dammann F, Horger M, Mueller-Berg M, et al. Rational diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region: comparative evaluation of CT, MRI, and 18FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(4):1326–31.
Blodgett TM, Fukui MB, Snyderman CH, et al. Combined PET-CT in the head and neck: part 1. Physiologic, altered physiologic, and artifactual FDG uptake. Radiographics. 2005;25(4):897–912.
Popperl G, Lang S, Dagdelen O, et al. Correlation of FDG-PET and MRI/CT with histopathology in primary diagnosis, lymph node staging and diagnosis of recurrency of head and neck cancer. Rofo. 2002;174(6):714–20.
Mukherji SK, Isaacs DL, Creager A, Shockley W, Weissler M, Armao D. CT detection of mandibular invasion by squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):237–43.
Bolzoni A, Cappiello J, Piazza C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of mandibular involvement in oral-oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(7):837–43.
Weissman JL, Carrau RL. “Puffed-cheek” CT improves evaluation of the oral cavity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(4):741–4.
Chong VF, Mukherji SK, Ng SH, et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: review of how imaging affects staging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999;23(6):984–93.
Sakata K, Hareyama M, Tamakawa M, et al. Prognostic factors of nasopharynx tumors investigated by MR imaging and the value of MR imaging in the newly published TNM staging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(2):273–8.
Rumboldt Z, Castillo M, Smith JK. The palatovaginal canal: can it be identified on routine CT and MR imaging? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(1):267–72.
Curtin HD. Detection of perineural spread: fat suppression versus no fat suppression. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(1):1–3.
Ginsberg LE. MR imaging of perineural tumor spread. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2004;14(4):663–77.
Becker M, Zbaren P, Delavelle J, et al. Neoplastic invasion of the laryngeal cartilage: reassessment of criteria for diagnosis at CT. Radiology. 1997;203(2):521–32.
Zbaren P, Becker M, Lang H. Pretherapeutic staging of laryngeal carcinoma. Clinical findings, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging compared with histopathology. Cancer. 1996;77(7):1263–73.
Habermann CR, Gossrau P, Graessner J, et al. Diffusion-weighted echo-planar MRI: a valuable tool for differentiating primary parotid gland tumors? Rofo. 2005;177(7):940–5.
Divi V, Fatt MA, Teknos TN, Mukherji SK. Use of cross-sectional imaging in predicting surgical location of parotid neoplasms. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29(3):315–9.
Schmalfuss IM, Tart RP, Mukherji S, Mancuso AA. Perineural tumor spread along the auriculotemporal nerve. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23(2):303–11.
Ng SH, Yen TC, Liao CT, et al. 18F-FDG PET and CT/MRI in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of 124 patients with histologic correlation. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(7):1136–43.
Williams 3rd DW. An imager’s guide to normal neck anatomy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1997;18(3):157–81.
Byers RM, Wolf PF, Ballantyne AJ. Rationale for elective modified neck dissection. Head Neck Surg. 1988;10(3):160–7.
Giacomarra V, Tirelli G, Papanikolla L, Bussani R. Predictive factors of nodal metastases in oral cavity and oropharynx carcinomas. Laryngoscope. 1999;109(5):795–9.
Yousem DM, Som PM, Hackney DB, Schwaibold F, Hendrix RA. Central nodal necrosis and extracapsular neoplastic spread in cervical lymph nodes: MR imaging versus CT. Radiology. 1992;182(3):753–9.
Takashima S, Noguchi Y, Takeuchi N, et al. Head and neck carcinoma: detection of extraorgan spread with MR imaging and CT. Eur J Radiol. 1992;14(3):228–34.
Jabour BA, Choi Y, Hoh CK, et al. Extracranial head and neck: PET imaging with 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and MR imaging correlation. Radiology. 1993;186(1):27–35.
Benchaou M, Lehmann W, Slosman DO, et al. The role of FDG-PET in the preoperative assessment of N-staging in head and neck cancer. Acta Otolaryngol. 1996;116(2):332–5.
McGuirt WF, Williams 3rd DW, Keyes Jr JW, et al. A comparative diagnostic study of head and neck nodal metastases using positron emission tomography. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(4 Pt 1):373–5.
Fukui MB, Blodgett TM, Snyderman CH, et al. Combined PET-CT in the head and neck: part 2. Diagnostic uses and pitfalls of oncologic imaging. Radiographics. 2005;25(4):913–30.
Hyde NC, Prvulovich E, Newman L, Waddington WA, Visvikis D, Ell P. A new approach to pre-treatment assessment of the N0 neck in oral squamous cell carcinoma: the role of sentinel node biopsy and positron emission tomography. Oral Oncol. 2003;39(4):350–60.
Stoeckli SJ, Steinert H, Pfaltz M, Schmid S. Is there a role for positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in the initial staging of nodal negative oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2002;24(4):345–9.
van den Brekel MW. Lymph node metastases: CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2000;33(3):230–8.
Murakami R, Uozumi H, Hirai T, et al. Impact of FDG-PET/CT imaging on nodal staging for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(2):377–82.
Schoder H, Erdi YE, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT: a new imaging technology in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(10):1419–37.
Basu D, Siegel BA, McDonald DJ, Nussenbaum B. Detection of occult bone metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: impact of positron emission tomography computed tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose F 18. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(8):801–5.
de Bree R, Deurloo EE, Snow GB, Leemans CR. Screening for distant metastases in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(3 Pt 1):397–401.
Brouwer J, Bree R, Hoekstra OS, Langendijk JA, Castelijns JA, Leemans CR. Screening for distant metastases in patients with head and neck cancer: what is the current clinical practice? Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;30(5):438–43.
Preciado DA, Sebring LA, Adams GL. Treatment of patients with spinal metastases from head and neck neoplasms. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128(5):539–43.
Merino OR, Lindberg RD, Fletcher GH. An analysis of distant metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the upper respiratory and digestive tracts. Cancer. 1977;40(1):145–51.
Calhoun KH, Fulmer P, Weiss R, Hokanson JA. Distant metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Laryngoscope. 1994;104(10):1199–205.
Al-Othman MO, Morris CG, Hinerman RW, Amdur RJ, Mendenhall WM. Distant metastases after definitive radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck. 2003;25(8):629–33.
Ferlito A, Shaha AR, Silver CE, Rinaldo A, Mondin V. Incidence and sites of distant metastases from head and neck cancer. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2001;63(4):202–7.
Wax MK, Myers LL, Gabalski EC, Husain S, Gona JM, Nabi H. Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of synchronous lung lesions in patients with untreated head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128(6):703–7.
Perlow A, Bui C, Shreve P, Sundgren PC, Teknos TN, Mukherji SK. High incidence of chest malignancy detected by FDG PET in patients suspected of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;28(5):704–9.
Teknos TN, Rosenthal EL, Lee D, Taylor R, Marn CS. Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of stage III and IV head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2001;23(12):1056–60.
van Veen SA, Balm AJ, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Occult primary tumors of the head and neck: accuracy of thallium 201 single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(4):406–11.
Nguyen C, Shenouda G, Black MJ, Vuong T, Donath D, Yassa M. Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma to cervical lymph nodes from unknown primary mucosal sites. Head Neck. 1994;16(1):58–63.
Maulard C, Housset M, Brunel P, et al. Postoperative radiation therapy for cervical lymph node metastases from an occult squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 1992;102(8):884–90.
Harper CS, Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, Stringer SP, Cassisi NJ, Million RR. Cancer in neck nodes with unknown primary site: role of mucosal radiotherapy. Head Neck. 1990;12(6):463–9.
Koch WM, Bhatti N, Williams MF, Eisele DW. Oncologic rationale for bilateral tonsillectomy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary source. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;124(3):331–3.
Martin JM, Galloway TJ. Evaluation and management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2015;24:579–91.
Miller FR, Hussey D, Beeram M, Eng T, McGuff HS, Otto RA. Positron emission tomography in the management of unknown primary head and neck carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(7):626–9.
Fakhry C, Agrawal N, Califano J, et al. The use of ultrasound in the search for the primary site of unknown primary head and neck squamous cell cancers. Oral Oncol. 2014;50(7):640–5.
Mydlarz WK, Liu J, Blanco R, Fakhry C. Transcervical ultrasound identifies primary tumor site of unknown primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(6):1090–2.
Davidson BJ, Spiro RH, Patel S, Patel K, Shah JP. Cervical metastases of occult origin: the impact of combined modality therapy. Am J Surg. 1994;168(5):395–9.
Talmi YP, Wolf GT, Hazuka M, Krause CJ. Unknown primary of the head and neck. J Laryngol Otol. 1996;110(4):353–6.
Nieder C, Gregoire V, Ang KK. Cervical lymph node metastases from occult squamous cell carcinoma: cut down a tree to get an apple? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(3):727–33.
Grau C, Johansen LV, Jakobsen J, Geertsen P, Andersen E, Jensen BB. Cervical lymph node metastases from unknown primary tumours. Results from a national survey by the Danish society for head and neck oncology. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55(2):121–9.
AAssar OS, Fischbein NJ, Caputo GR, et al. Metastatic head and neck cancer: role and usefulness of FDG PET in locating occult primary tumors. Radiology. 1999;210(1):177–81.
Braams JW, Pruim J, Kole AC, et al. Detection of unknown primary head and neck tumors by positron emission tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;26(2):112–5.
Bohuslavizki KH, Klutmann S, Kroger S, et al. FDG PET detection of unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(5):816–22.
Johansen J, Eigtved A, Buchwald C, Theilgaard SA, Hansen HS. Implication of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography on management of carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck: a Danish cohort study. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(11):2009–14.
Silva P, Hulse P, Sykes AJ, et al. Should FDG-PET scanning be routinely used for patients with an unknown head and neck squamous primary? J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121(2):149–53.
Tepperman BS, Fitzpatrick PJ. Second respiratory and upper digestive tract cancers after oral cancer. Lancet. 1981;2(8246):547–9.
Wax MK, Myers LL, Gona JM, Husain SS, Nabi HA. The role of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of the N-positive neck. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(3):163–7.
Choi JY, Lee KS, Kwon OJ, et al. Improved detection of second primary cancer using integrated [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography for initial tumor staging. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7654–9.
Kamel EM, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, et al. Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(11):1804–10.
Deschler DG, Richmon JD, Khariwala SS, Ferris RL, Wang MB. The “new” head and neck cancer patient-young, nonsmoker, nondrinker, and HPV positive: evaluation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(3):375–80.
Joo YH, Yoo IR, Lee YS, et al. Association between the standardized uptake value and high-risk HPV in hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134(10):1062–70.
Kendi ATK, Magliocca K, Corey A, et al. Do F-18-FDG PET/CT parameters in oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas indicate HPV status? Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(3):E196–200.
Tahari AK, Alluri KC, Quon H, Koch W, Wahl RL, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET/CT imaging of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma characteristics of human papillomavirus-positive and -negative tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(3):225–31.
Tang C, Murphy JD, Khong B, et al. Validation that metabolic tumor volume predicts outcome in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(5):1514–20.
Dibble EH, Alvarez ACL, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, Subramaniam RM. F-18-FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(5):709–15.
Seol YM, Kwon BR, Song MK, et al. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with head and neck cancer treated by chemo-radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(2):201–8.
Cheng NM, Chang JTC, Huang CG, et al. Prognostic value of pretreatment F-18-FDG PET/CT and human papillomavirus type 16 testing in locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(11):1673–84.
Paidpally V, Chirindel A, Chung CH, et al. FDG volumetric parameters and survival outcomes after definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(2):W139–45.
Zhang I, Branstetter BF, Beswick DM, Maxwell JH, Gooding WE, Ferris RL. The benefit of early PET/CT surveillance in HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;137(11):1106–11.
Koshkareva Y, Branstetter BF, Gaughan JP, Ferris RL. Predictive accuracy of first post-treatment PET/CT in HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(8):1843–7.
Subramaniam RM, Alluri KC, Tahari AK, Aygun N, Quon H. PET/CT imaging and human papilloma virus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: evolving clinical imaging paradigm. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(3):431–8.
Chan JYK, Sanguineti G, Richmon JD, et al. Retrospective review of positron emission tomography with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the posttreatment setting in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(11):1040–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meraj, T.S., Mohan, S., Shah, G.V. (2016). Imaging of Head and Neck Cancers. In: Bernier, J. (eds) Head and Neck Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27601-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27601-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27599-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27601-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)