Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 21 (July 20), 2005: pp. 4803-4804
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5942

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pohar, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pohar, S.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Reply
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

CORRESPONDENCE

Positron Emission Tomography Paradigm Fuzzier Than Reported

Surjeet Pohar

State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY

To the Editor:

Kovacs et al1 report an interesting prospective trial evaluating the utility of positron emission tomography (PET) and sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in patients with oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOSCC). I agree that their management paradigm results in fewer neck dissections for patients staged with PET and SNB than for patients staged by computed tomography (CT) and SNB. I disagree however with their contention that their new proposed management paradigm is better than the current standard of care for the clinical N0 neck. Many if not most centers use radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy rather than surgery as the initial therapy in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Patients with OOSCC and a N0 neck after triple endoscopy, CT scan, and physical exam staging are well served by the strategy developed by Fletcher et al2 in the 1970s. If the primary tumor is controlled, recurrences after radiation therapy administration at 50 Gy in 5 weeks to an N0 neck are exceedingly rare (less than 3%). This experience is supported by the accepted radiobiologic concept that the small amounts of tumor that are present in roughly one third of the patients with N0 disease can be controlled by a lower nontoxic dose of radiation. PET, SNB, and limited neck dissections bring unnecessary risks and financial burdens to these patients.

In Table 2 of the Kovacs et al article, when comparing the utility of PET versus CT it becomes evident that there are no significant differences between the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive or negative predictive values of PET and CT in the patients studied.

Our data3 from the State University of New York Upstate Medical University (Syracuse, NY) on 52 patients with head and neck cancer show similar sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates when comparing patients staged with PET plus clinical findings to patients staged by CT plus clinical findings.

In conclusion, triple endoscopy, CT scanning, and physical exam should remain the standard staging method for OOSCC patients. Patients with N0 neck disease do not need a PET scan, a sentinel node biopsy, or a neck dissection if they have received radiation therapy.

Author's Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The author indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Kovács AF, Döbert N, Gaa J, et al: Positron emission tomography in combination with sentinel node biopsy reduces the rate of elective neck dissections in the treatment of oral or oropharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3973-3980, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Fletcher GH: Head and Neck: Neck Nodes, in Textbook of Radiotherapy (ed 3). Philadelphia, PA, Lea and Febiger, 1980, pp 250-253

3. Pohar S, Brown R, Hsu J, et al: How does PET imaging change the management of patients with head and neck cancer? Radiother Oncol 173:S295, 2004 (suppl 1)[CrossRef]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?

Related Reply

  • In Reply:
    Adorján F. Kovács
    JCO 2005 23: 4804-4805 [Full Text]



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pohar, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pohar, S.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Reply
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online