English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

To compare the interobserver agreement and degree of confidence in anatomical localisation of lesions using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and (18)F-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. (18)F-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. (18)F-FDG PET images were interpreted by three independent observers. The observers were asked to localise abnormal (18)F-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 (18)F-FDG-avid lesions, standardised uptake values (SUVs) were also calculated. After 3 weeks, the same exercise was carried out using (18)F-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 (18)F-FDG uptake (SUV range 7.2-22) were identified on (18)F-FDG PET alone and on (18)F-FDG PET/CT. In all, 15 nonprimary tumour sites were identified with (18)F-FDG PET only (SUV range 4.5-11.7), while 17 were identified on (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Using (18)F-FDG PET only, correct localisation was documented in three of six primary lesions, while (18)F-FDG PET/CT correctly identified all primary sites. In nonprimary tumour sites, (18)F-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 (18)F-FDG PET alone (kappa coefficients of 0.45 and 0.54, respectively), but almost perfect with (18)F-FDG PET/CT (kappa coefficients of 0.90 and 0.93, respectively). We conclude that (18)F-FDG PET/CT significantly increases interobserver agreement and confidence in disease localisation of (18)F-FDG-avid lesions in patients with head and neck cancers.

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