{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029857602204869087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036747818098300414, 'mean_word_length': 5.016574585635359, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Whole-Body PET/CT, Dedicated High-Resolution Head and Neck PET/CT, and Contrast-Enhanced CT in Preoperative Staging of Clinically M0 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

The purpose of this study was to compare optimized whole-body (WB) and dedicated high-resolution contrast-enhanced PET/CT protocols and contrast enhanced CT in the preoperative staging of primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Methods: A total of 44 patients with clinically M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck underwent primary tumor resection and neck dissection within 6 wk of diagnostic imaging. Imaging consisted of a standard WB PET/CT protocol without intravenous contrast enhancement, followed by a high-resolution dedicated head and neck (HN) PET/CT protocol, which included diagnostic-quality contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Imaging results were compared with histopathology. A 5-point scale was used to designate primary tumor localization and the presence of lymph node metastasis on a per-patient and per-level basis. For cervical nodes, receiver-operating-characteristic curves were generated to determine the differences in performance between the WB and HN PET/CT protocols and CECT. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were calculated for primary tumor and cervical nodes. Results: No statistical difference was observed between WB and HN PET/CT protocols, both of which significantly outperformed CECT, in the evaluation of the primary tumor. The performance of the HN PET/CT protocol was superior to that of the WB PET/CT in the detection of cervical node metastases, achieving statistical significance on a per-level basis and approaching significance on a per-patient basis, with the greatest advantage in the detection of small positive lymph nodes (<15 mm). No significant difference was observed between the WB PET/CT protocol and CECT in nodal staging, either on a per-patient or on a per-level basis. Conclusion: The primary advantage of the dedicated HN PET/CT protocol over the WB protocol or CECT in the staging of head and neck cancer is in the detection of small lymph node metastases.