F Slevin1, M Subesinghe2,3, S Ramasamy1, M Sen1, A F Scarsbrook2,3, R J D Prestwich1. 1. 1 Department of Clinical Oncology, St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK. 3. 3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of a 4-month post-(chemo)radiotherapy 18-fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-CT for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: 105 patients who underwent a baseline and response assessment (18)F-FDG PET-CT scan between 2008 and April 2013 were identified. (18)F-FDG PET-CT outcomes were analysed with reference to clinicopathological outcomes. RESULTS: 79 of 105 (75%) (18)F-FDG PET-CT scans demonstrated a complete metabolic response; 19 of 101 (19%) for assessable primary tumours were positive; and 19 of 93 (20%) for patients with nodal disease were equivocal (n = 10) or positive (n = 9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for primary and nodal disease were 90%, 89%, 47%, 99% and 91%, 89%, 53% and 99%, respectively. Eight of nine patients with a positive nodal response scan had clinicopathological evidence of residual nodal disease (PPV, 89%). 2 of 10 patients with equivocal nodal responses had clinicopathological evidence of residual nodal disease (PPV, 20%). CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET-CT 4 months post treatment has a very high NPV. A positive (18)F-FDG PET-CT has a high PPV for residual nodal disease. By contrast, patients who have an equivocal nodal response have a low PPV. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Response assessment (18)F-FDG PET-CT is a valuable tool in guiding the selective use of neck dissection following (chemo)radiotherapy for HNSCC. An equivocal lymph node response has a limited predictive value for persistent disease, and optimal management remains a clinical challenge.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of a 4-month post-(chemo)radiotherapy 18-fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-CT for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: 105 patients who underwent a baseline and response assessment (18)F-FDG PET-CT scan between 2008 and April 2013 were identified. (18)F-FDG PET-CT outcomes were analysed with reference to clinicopathological outcomes. RESULTS: 79 of 105 (75%) (18)F-FDG PET-CT scans demonstrated a complete metabolic response; 19 of 101 (19%) for assessable primary tumours were positive; and 19 of 93 (20%) for patients with nodal disease were equivocal (n = 10) or positive (n = 9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for primary and nodal disease were 90%, 89%, 47%, 99% and 91%, 89%, 53% and 99%, respectively. Eight of nine patients with a positive nodal response scan had clinicopathological evidence of residual nodal disease (PPV, 89%). 2 of 10 patients with equivocal nodal responses had clinicopathological evidence of residual nodal disease (PPV, 20%). CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET-CT 4 months post treatment has a very high NPV. A positive (18)F-FDG PET-CT has a high PPV for residual nodal disease. By contrast, patients who have an equivocal nodal response have a low PPV. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Response assessment (18)F-FDG PET-CT is a valuable tool in guiding the selective use of neck dissection following (chemo)radiotherapy for HNSCC. An equivocal lymph node response has a limited predictive value for persistent disease, and optimal management remains a clinical challenge.
Authors: Arlene A Forastiere; Helmuth Goepfert; Moshe Maor; Thomas F Pajak; Randal Weber; William Morrison; Bonnie Glisson; Andy Trotti; John A Ridge; Clifford Chao; Glen Peters; Ding-Jen Lee; Andrea Leaf; John Ensley; Jay Cooper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M W van den Brekel; H V Stel; J A Castelijns; J J Nauta; I van der Waal; J Valk; C J Meyer; G B Snow Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anuj Goenka; Luc G T Morris; Shyam S Rao; Suzanne L Wolden; Richard J Wong; Dennis H Kraus; Nisha Ohri; Jeremy Setton; Benjamin H Lok; Nadeem Riaz; Borys R Mychalczak; Heiko Schoder; Ian Ganly; Jatin P Shah; David G Pfister; Michael J Zelefsky; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jeffrey M Vainshtein; Matthew E Spector; Matthew H Stenmark; Carol R Bradford; Gregory T Wolf; Francis P Worden; Douglas B Chepeha; Jonathan B McHugh; Thomas Carey; Ka Kit Wong; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: David M Brizel; Robert G Prosnitz; Shannon Hunter; Samuel R Fisher; Robert L Clough; Mary Ann Downey; Richard L Scher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charles Marcus; Anthony Ciarallo; Abdel K Tahari; Esther Mena; Wayne Koch; Richard L Wahl; Ana P Kiess; Hyunseok Kang; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David J Adelstein; Yi Li; George L Adams; Henry Wagner; Julie A Kish; John F Ensley; David E Schuller; Arlene A Forastiere Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jon Cacicedo; Arturo Navarro; Olga Del Hoyo; Alfonso Gomez-Iturriaga; Filippo Alongi; Jose A Medina; Olgun Elicin; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile; Pedro Bilbao; Francisco Casquero; Berardino de Bari; Alan Dal Pra Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Robin J D Prestwich; Moses Arunsingh; Jim Zhong; Karen E Dyker; Sriram Vaidyanathan; Andrew F Scarsbrook Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Finbar Slevin; Ekin Ermiş; Sriram Vaidyanathan; Mehmet Sen; Andrew F Scarsbrook; Robin Jd Prestwich Journal: Clin Med Insights Oncol Date: 2017-06-14