“…However, in a recent review of trials evaluating PET for detecting residual or recurrent HNSCC in undifferentiated patients treated by radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, among 27 of 1,871 identified studies the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET for detecting residual or recurrent HNSCC were 94% and 82%, respectively, whereas the CT mean pooled sensitivity and specificity were lower (67% and 78%, respectively), as were the sensitivity and specificity of MRI (81% and 46%, respectively) (22). In another recent review of 21 articles comparing 18 F-FDG PET, CT, and MRI for the diagnosis of local residual or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET (95%) were significantly higher than those for CT (76%) (P , 0.001) or MRI (78%) (P , 0.001) and the pooled specificity estimates for PET (90%) were significantly higher than those for CT (59%) (P , 0.001) or MRI (76%) (P , 0.001) (23). Moreover, in a prospective study comparing 18 F-FDG PET, CT, and MRI for the initial evaluation of 134 oral SCC patients with a palpably negative neck, Ng et al found 18 F-FDG PET to have a sensitivity 2-fold higher than CT or MRI in the detection of nodal metastases (41.2% vs. 21.6%, respectively; P 5 0.021) (24).…”