OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship of PET/CT parameters with human papillomavirus (HPV) status of oropharyngeal (OP) and oral cavity (OC) squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 39 patients with OC and OP-SCC who underwent staging 18F-FDG PET/CT. PET/CT parameters were measured for the primary tumor and the hottest involved node, including SUV max, SUV mean, SUV peak, metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis, standardized added metabolic activity (SAM), and normalized SAM. Patient characteristics were compared between HPV positive (HPV+) and negative (HPV-) groups. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to dichotomize PET/CT parameters into high and low. Logistic regression models predicting HPV status were fit for each PET/CT parameter. RESULTS: The HPV+ group was composed of 18 patients all with OP-SCC; the HPV- group consisted of 21 patients, 4 OP cancer patients and 17 OC cancer patients. The HPV+ group had a higher proportion of N2 stage (94% vs 43%; P < 0.001). Nodal PET/CT parameters were higher in the HPV+ group (P < 0.01); this difference was not present for the primary lesion. After adjusting for sex and age, the association of higher nodal SUV max (odds ratio [OR], 9.67), SUV mean (OR, 10.48), SUV peak (OR 9.67), metabolic tumor volume (OR, 14.52), total lesion glycolysis (OR, 11.84), and SAM, normalized SAM (OR, 16.21) with HPV+ status remained statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nodal PET/CT parameters predict HPV status. High nodal FDG uptake should raise suspicion for positive HPV status in the evaluation of the primary lesion.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship of PET/CT parameters with human papillomavirus (HPV) status of oropharyngeal (OP) and oral cavity (OC) squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 39 patients with OC and OP-SCC who underwent staging 18F-FDG PET/CT. PET/CT parameters were measured for the primary tumor and the hottest involved node, including SUV max, SUV mean, SUV peak, metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis, standardized added metabolic activity (SAM), and normalized SAM. Patient characteristics were compared between HPV positive (HPV+) and negative (HPV-) groups. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to dichotomize PET/CT parameters into high and low. Logistic regression models predicting HPV status were fit for each PET/CT parameter. RESULTS: The HPV+ group was composed of 18 patients all with OP-SCC; the HPV- group consisted of 21 patients, 4 OP cancerpatients and 17 OC cancerpatients. The HPV+ group had a higher proportion of N2 stage (94% vs 43%; P < 0.001). Nodal PET/CT parameters were higher in the HPV+ group (P < 0.01); this difference was not present for the primary lesion. After adjusting for sex and age, the association of higher nodal SUV max (odds ratio [OR], 9.67), SUV mean (OR, 10.48), SUV peak (OR 9.67), metabolic tumor volume (OR, 14.52), total lesion glycolysis (OR, 11.84), and SAM, normalized SAM (OR, 16.21) with HPV+ status remained statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nodal PET/CT parameters predict HPV status. High nodal FDG uptake should raise suspicion for positive HPV status in the evaluation of the primary lesion.
Authors: James D Murphy; Trang H La; Karen Chu; Andrew Quon; Nancy J Fischbein; Peter G Maxim; Edward E Graves; Billy W Loo; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana C Lara Alvarez; Minh-Tam Truong; Gustavo Mercier; Earl F Cook; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ayse Tuba Karagulle Kendi; Kelly R Magliocca; Amanda Corey; James R Galt; Jeffrey Switchenko; J Trad Wadsworth; Mark W El-Deiry; David M Schuster; Nabil F Saba; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Joël Castelli; A Depeursinge; A Devillers; B Campillo-Gimenez; Y Dicente; J O Prior; E Chajon; F Jegoux; C Sire; O Acosta; E Gherga; X Sun; B De Bari; J Bourhis; R de Crevoisier Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Saul N Friedman; Maryam Mahmood; Jennifer R Geske; Muhammad Rizwan Sohail; Geoffrey B Johnson; John M Stulak; Ayse Tuba Kendi Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: A Tuba Kendi; Amanda Corey; Kelly R Magliocca; James R Galt; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Kristin Higgins; Jonathan J Beitler; J Trad Wadsworth; Mark W El-Deiry; David M Schuster; Nabil F Saba; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Travis C Salzillo; Nicolette Taku; Kareem A Wahid; Brigid A McDonald; Jarey Wang; Lisanne V van Dijk; Jillian M Rigert; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Jihong Wang; Stephen Y Lai; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 5.421
Authors: Shanmugappiriya Sivarajah; Andre Isaac; Tim Cooper; Han Zhang; Lakshmi Puttagunta; Jonathan Abele; Vincent Biron; Jeffery Harris; Hadi Seikaly; Daniel A O' Connell Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Jessica Clark; Caroline C Jeffery; Han Zhang; Tim Cooper; Daniel A O'Connell; Jeffrey Harris; Hadi Seikaly; Vincent L Biron Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-09-15
Authors: Petra K de Koekkoek-Doll; Sander Roberti; Laura Smit; Wouter V Vogel; Regina Beets-Tan; Michiel W van den Brekel; Jonas Castelijns Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: S Connor; C Sit; M Anjari; M Lei; T Guerrero-Urbano; T Szyszko; G Cook; P Bassett; V Goh Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 4.553