A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT for the assessment of necrotic lymph node metastases. | LitMetric

Background: Cystic lymph node metastasis (CLNM) is commonly found in human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy in detecting cystic lymph node metastasis from tonsillar SCC between contrast-enhanced CT, ¹⁸F- fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), non-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT, and contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT.

Methods: Thirty-four patients with a tonsillar SCC undergoing a pretreatment contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT followed by a neck dissection as a standard of reference were included. The contrast-enhanced CT part, the ¹⁸F-FDG-PET part, the non-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT part, and the contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT were assessed separately for correct N classification and the differentiation of N0 versus N+. RESULTS.: Contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT, non-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT, and contrast-enhanced CT are equally accurate for correct neck staging. Regarding pN0 versus pN+, contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT are superior to non-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT (p = .017).

Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT perform equally and better than non-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in detecting CLNM in tonsillar SCC. Therefore, in patients scheduled for ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT, we strongly suggest performing a contrast-enhanced ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT, which is not routine in most centers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hed.21447DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

contrast-enhanced ¹⁸f-fdg-pet/ct
28
non-enhanced ¹⁸f-fdg-pet/ct
20
contrast-enhanced
13
lymph node
12
tonsillar scc
12
¹⁸f-fdg-pet/ct
12
¹⁸f-fdg-pet/ct contrast-enhanced
12
cystic lymph
8
node metastasis
8
contrast-enhanced contrast-enhanced
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!