Lessons from Missed Lesions in Head and Neck FDG PET/CT: A Two-Case Report and Brief Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59667/sjoranm.v34i1.14Keywords:
FDG PET/CT, squamous cell carcinoma, cognitive bias, missed lesionsAbstract
Head and neck FDG PET/CT interpretation is vulnerable to diagnostic error because of complex anatomy, physiological uptake, post-treatment change, and subtle perineural spread. We report two patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in whom retrospectively visible lesions were not described on earlier FDG PET/CT examinations and were recognized after subsequent progression. The cases illustrate anchoring, premature diagnostic closure, satisfaction of search, and attentional capture near dominant or expected abnormalities. A systematic review of the retroantral fat, pterygopalatine fossa, pterygoid musculature, skull-base foramina, and relevant neural pathways may improve detection. Equivocal skull-base findings may prompt dedicated MRI for further characterization and staging assessment. These illustrative cases do not permit estimation of the frequency of missed lesions or the effect of earlier recognition on treatment outcome.
References
1. Bagal S, Budukh A, Singh Thakur J, Dora T, Qayyumi B, Khanna D, et al. Head and neck cancer burden in India: an analysis from published data of 37 population-based cancer registries. ecancer. 2023 Sep 21;17. https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2023.1603 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2023.1603
2. Goyal AK, Saini J, Bakshi J, Alnemare AK, Mahfoz TB. Prevalence, Incidence, and Mortality Trends of Head and Neck Cancers in India: A GLOBOCAN 2022 Statistics Analysis. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2025 Dec;16(6):1590–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-025-02264-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-025-02264-1
3. Saquib Ali M, Chaudhary AK, Shukla P, Purwar N, Singh PK. Tobacco-Driven Oral Cancer in India: Clinicopathological Correlates and Prevention Priorities. Cureus. 2025 Aug 11. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.89780 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.89780
4. Purohit BS, Ailianou A, Dulguerov N, Becker CD, Ratib O, Becker M. FDG-PET/CT pitfalls in oncological head and neck imaging. Insights Imaging. 2014 Oct;5(5):585–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0349-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0349-x
5. Kalytis L, Ušinskienė J. Radiological Imaging Findings of Perineural Spread in Head-and-Neck Malignancies: Literature Review. NS. 2024 Oct 1;28(3 (101)):171–84. https://doi.org/10.15388/NS.2024.28.101.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/NS.2024.28.101.4
6. Abdullaeva U, Pape B, Hirvonen J. Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI in Detecting the Perineural Spread of Head and Neck Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics. 2024 Jan 4;14(1):113. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14010113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14010113
7. Chandra P, Purandare N, Shah S, Agrawal A, Rangarajan V. Common patterns of perineural spread in head-neck squamous cell carcinoma identified on fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2016 Oct;31(4):274–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-3919.190798 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-3919.190798
8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
9. Itri JN, Patel SH. Heuristics and Cognitive Error in Medical Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2018 May;210(5):1097–105. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18907 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18907
10. Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and System Factors Contributing to Diagnostic Errors in Radiology. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2013 Sep;201(3):611–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10375
11. Berbaum KS, Franken EA, Dorfman DD, Rooholamini SA, Kathol MH, Barloon TJ, et al. Satisfaction of Search in Diagnostic Radiology: Investigative Radiology. 1990 Feb;25(2):133–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199002000-00006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199002000-00006
12. Yoon SY, Lee KS, Bezuidenhout AF, Kruskal JB. Spectrum of Cognitive Biases in Diagnostic Radiology. RadioGraphics. 2024 Jul 1;44(7):e230059. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230059
13. Alotaibi NA, Yakar D, Glaudemans AWJM, Kwee TC. Diagnostic errors in clinical FDG-PET/CT. European Journal of Radiology. 2020 Nov;132:109296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109296 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109296
14. Thrall JH. Teleradiology Part II. Limitations, Risks, and Opportunities. Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):325–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2442070676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2442070676
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable. No datasets were generated or analyzed for this case report.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ahalya Nair, Amol Pawar, Chaitra Deshpande
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes.
