BACKGROUND: There is controversy over the concept of function and organ preservation by chemotherapy/chemoradiation instead of surgery in locally advanced cancer of the larynx or pharynx. Tumor response to induction chemotherapy (ICT) can help in choosing between conservative and surgical treatment. This study compared 3 methods of assessing response to ICT: endoscopy, computed tomography, and (18) F-FDG-PET/CT. METHODS: Primary response to 1 cycle of ICT with docetaxel plus platinum was assessed by the aforementioned methods in 62 laryngopharyngeal cancer patients. Endoscopic response was the deciding factor for selecting further treatment: surgery for endoscopic nonresponders (<30% tumor response) versus chemoradiotherapy for endoscopic responders. RESULTS: ICT achieved endoscopic response in 48 of 62 patients (77%). Individual relative residual tumor activity of standardized uptake value (resSUV(max)) in (18)F-FDG-PET/CT was a median 0.38 of baseline (0.09-1.71), whereas residual tumor extent in CT (resCT) was 0.75 of baseline (0.32-1.20). Endoscopic responders and nonresponders differed significantly in SUV(max) after ICT (postSUVmax , 6.0 vs 14.5; P < .001), resSUV(max) (0.34 vs 0.81, P < .001), and resCT (0.71 vs 0.87, P = .004), but not in maximum tumor diameter after ICT (14 vs 20 mm, P = .11). resSUV(max) <0.8 and absolute postSUV(max) <10 provided the best discriminatory power for long-term success criteria (tumor-free survival, overall survival). CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic tumor response showed very good correlation with clinical tumor response to ICT. The value of metabolic response detected by (18)F-FDG-PET/CT should be explored in a prospective clinical trial.
BACKGROUND: There is controversy over the concept of function and organ preservation by chemotherapy/chemoradiation instead of surgery in locally advanced cancer of the larynx or pharynx. Tumor response to induction chemotherapy (ICT) can help in choosing between conservative and surgical treatment. This study compared 3 methods of assessing response to ICT: endoscopy, computed tomography, and (18) F-FDG-PET/CT. METHODS: Primary response to 1 cycle of ICT with docetaxel plus platinum was assessed by the aforementioned methods in 62 laryngopharyngeal cancerpatients. Endoscopic response was the deciding factor for selecting further treatment: surgery for endoscopic nonresponders (<30% tumor response) versus chemoradiotherapy for endoscopic responders. RESULTS: ICT achieved endoscopic response in 48 of 62 patients (77%). Individual relative residual tumor activity of standardized uptake value (resSUV(max)) in (18)F-FDG-PET/CT was a median 0.38 of baseline (0.09-1.71), whereas residual tumor extent in CT (resCT) was 0.75 of baseline (0.32-1.20). Endoscopic responders and nonresponders differed significantly in SUV(max) after ICT (postSUVmax , 6.0 vs 14.5; P < .001), resSUV(max) (0.34 vs 0.81, P < .001), and resCT (0.71 vs 0.87, P = .004), but not in maximum tumor diameter after ICT (14 vs 20 mm, P = .11). resSUV(max) <0.8 and absolute postSUV(max) <10 provided the best discriminatory power for long-term success criteria (tumor-free survival, overall survival). CONCLUSIONS:Metabolic tumor response showed very good correlation with clinical tumor response to ICT. The value of metabolic response detected by (18)F-FDG-PET/CT should be explored in a prospective clinical trial.
Authors: M Hecht; S Semrau; M Beck; J Hartwich; M Eckstein; D Schmidt; A O Gostian; S Müller; S Rutzner; U S Gaipl; J von der Grün; T Illmer; M G Hautmann; G Klautke; J Döscher; T Brunner; B Tamaskovics; A Hartmann; H Iro; T Kuwert; R Fietkau Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Rebekka Götzl; Sebastian Sterzinger; Sabine Semrau; Nikolaos Vassos; Werner Hohenberger; Robert Grützmann; Abbas Agaimy; Andreas Arkudas; Raymund E Horch; Justus P Beier Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Renata Fockink Dos Anjos; Dalton Alexandre Dos Anjos; Danielle Leal Vieira; André Ferreira Leite; Paulo Tadeu de Souza Figueiredo; Nilce Santos de Melo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.889