C S Schouten1, P de Graaf2, E Bloemena3, B I Witte4, B J M Braakhuis1, R H Brakenhoff1, C R Leemans1, J A Castelijns2, R de Bree5. 1. From the Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (C.S.S., B.J.M.B., R.H.B., C.R.L., R.d.B.). 2. Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (P.d.G., J.A.C.). 3. Pathology (E.B.) Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Oral Pathology (E.B.), VU University Medical Center/Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Epidemiology and Biostatistics (B.I.W.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. From the Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (C.S.S., B.J.M.B., R.H.B., C.R.L., R.d.B.) r.bree@vumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas have a better survival rate than those with human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. DWI characterizes biologically relevant tumor features, and the generated ADC may also provide prognostic information. We explored whether human papillomavirus status and ADC values are independent tumor characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas underwent pretreatment DWI. ADC values for the primary tumors were determined by using 3 b-values in an ROI containing the largest area of solid tumor on a single section of an axial DWI image. Human papillomavirus status was determined with p16 immunostaining, followed by high-risk human papillomavirus DNA detection on the p16-positive cases. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were human papillomavirus-positive (50.0%). ADC values were not significantly different between human papillomavirus-negative (ADC(mean) = 1.56 [1.18-2.18] × 10(3) mm(2)/s) and human papillomavirus-positive tumors (ADC(mean) = 1.46 [1.07-2.16] × 10(3) mm(2)/s). CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between ADC and human papillomavirus status was found in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. In our study population, differences in genetic and histologic features between human papillomavirus-positive and human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas did not translate into different ADC values. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish whether ADC has prognostic value and whether this is independent of the human papillomavirus status.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas have a better survival rate than those with human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. DWI characterizes biologically relevant tumor features, and the generated ADC may also provide prognostic information. We explored whether human papillomavirus status and ADC values are independent tumor characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas underwent pretreatment DWI. ADC values for the primary tumors were determined by using 3 b-values in an ROI containing the largest area of solid tumor on a single section of an axial DWI image. Human papillomavirus status was determined with p16 immunostaining, followed by high-risk human papillomavirus DNA detection on the p16-positive cases. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were human papillomavirus-positive (50.0%). ADC values were not significantly different between human papillomavirus-negative (ADC(mean) = 1.56 [1.18-2.18] × 10(3) mm(2)/s) and human papillomavirus-positive tumors (ADC(mean) = 1.46 [1.07-2.16] × 10(3) mm(2)/s). CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between ADC and human papillomavirus status was found in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. In our study population, differences in genetic and histologic features between human papillomavirus-positive and human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas did not translate into different ADC values. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish whether ADC has prognostic value and whether this is independent of the human papillomavirus status.
Authors: S Kim; L A Loevner; H Quon; A Kilger; E Sherman; G Weinstein; A Chalian; H Poptani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ashok Srinivasan; Thomas L Chenevert; Ben A Dwamena; Avraham Eisbruch; Kuanwong Watcharotone; James D Myles; Suresh K Mukherji Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Abie H Mendelsohn; Chi K Lai; I Peter Shintaku; David A Elashoff; Steven M Dubinett; Elliot Abemayor; Maie A St John Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Laurie Loevner; Harry Quon; Eric Sherman; Gregory Weinstein; Alex Kilger; Harish Poptani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: T de Perrot; V Lenoir; M Domingo Ayllón; N Dulguerov; M Pusztaszeri; M Becker Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 3.825
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: M Ravanelli; A Grammatica; M Maddalo; M Ramanzin; G M Agazzi; E Tononcelli; S Battocchio; P Bossi; M Vezzoli; R Maroldi; D Farina Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Roland M Martens; Thomas Koopman; Cristina Lavini; Meedie Ali; Carel F W Peeters; Daniel P Noij; Gerben Zwezerijnen; J Tim Marcus; Marije R Vergeer; C René Leemans; Remco de Bree; Pim de Graaf; Ronald Boellaard; Jonas A Castelijns Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 5.315