Home contents
2016
   N# 1 |
2015
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2014
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2013
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2012
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2011
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2010
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2009
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2008
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2007
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2006
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2005
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2004
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2003
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2002
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2001
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2000
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1999
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1998
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
1997
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1996
   N# 4 | 5 |

Click on the number of the review to see the content
Teaching bulletin CME
List of all teaching bulletins CME.
Editor reading committee
Editor reading committee.
To publish...
Instructions for authors
Archives Press and Books
Select of books and press articles.
Mailing list
News information letter.
Subscription prices


If you wish to adjust the size of the displayed characters, click in the high menu on "Your account" and choose the desired size.



  Contents > Previous page > Article detail print Order
o Issue N# 4 - 2003 o

HEAD AND NECK CARCINOLOGY

Is coincidence detection emission tomography (CDET) as reliable as positron emission tomography (PET) in head and neck cancer?


Authors : D. S. Lazard, B. Baujat, B. Barry, D. Le Guludec, P. Gehanno (Paris)

Ref. : Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 2003;124,4:207-210.

Article published in french
Downloadable PDF document french



Summary : Objective: Positron emission tomography (PET) is becoming more and more useful in head and neck tumour detection, guiding diagnostic and therapeutic decision. However, techniques, similar to PET, but using modified conventional tomography equipment, are used. The most commonly used is the dual-head positron emission tomography using coincidence detection (CDET). This study was aimed at searching if CDET could be as reliable as PET in some of its indications. Patients and methods: Between 1997 and 2001, 19 patients, with head and neck cancer, had a CDET, for 3 indications. We studied retrospectively sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) rates for these 3 indications. Results: 1°) Detection of unknown primary head and neck cancers with lymph node manifestation: Se = 100%, Sp = 66,7%. 2°) Detection of body metastasis: Se = 50%, Sp = 33%. 3°) Detection of local recurrent cancer: Se = 100 %, Sp = 25%. Conclusion: CDET seems to be useful in finding unknown primary cancers with lymph node manifestation but is not reliable to look for metastasis and local recurrences. It cannot be used in all indications for PET. If no other tool is available, this investigation can be used, keeping in mind its limitations.

Price : 10.50 €      order
|


Subscribe online - Pay by credit card!


© Copyright 1999-2017 - Revue de Laryngologie   Réalisation - Hébergement ELIDEE