Johanna Sjövall1, Ulrika Bitzén2, Elisabeth Kjellén3, Per Nilsson3, Peter Wahlberg4, Eva Brun3. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology (ORL)-Head and Neck Surgery, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, 22185, Lund, Sweden. johanna.sjovall@med.lu.se. 2. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 3. Department of Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology (ORL)-Head and Neck Surgery, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, 22185, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether PET scans after radiotherapy (RT), visually interpreted as equivocal regarding metabolic neck node response can be used to accurately categorize patients as responders or nonresponders using a Likert scale and/or maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). Other aims were to determine the performance of different methods for assessing post-RT PET scans (visual inspection, a Likert scale and SUVmax) and to establish whether any method is superior in predicting regional control (RC) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: In 105 patients with neck node-positive head and neck cancer, the neck node response was evaluated by FDG PET/CT 6 weeks after RT. The scans were clinically assessed by visual inspection and, for the purposes of this analysis, re-evaluated using the Deauville criteria, a five-point Likert scale previously used in lymphoma studies. In addition, SUVmax was determined. RESULTS: All assessment methods were able to significantly predict RC but not OS. The methods were also able to significantly predict remission of tumour after completion of RT. Of the 105 PET scans, 19 were judged as equivocal on visual inspection. The Likert scale was preferable to SUVmax for grouping patients as responders or nonresponders. CONCLUSION: All methods (visual inspection, SUVmax and the Likert scale) identified responders and nonresponders and predicted RC. A Likert scale is a promising tool to reduce to a minimum the problem of PET scans judged as equivocal. Consensus regarding qualitative assessment would facilitate PET reporting in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether PET scans after radiotherapy (RT), visually interpreted as equivocal regarding metabolic neck node response can be used to accurately categorize patients as responders or nonresponders using a Likert scale and/or maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). Other aims were to determine the performance of different methods for assessing post-RT PET scans (visual inspection, a Likert scale and SUVmax) and to establish whether any method is superior in predicting regional control (RC) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: In 105 patients with neck node-positive head and neck cancer, the neck node response was evaluated by FDG PET/CT 6 weeks after RT. The scans were clinically assessed by visual inspection and, for the purposes of this analysis, re-evaluated using the Deauville criteria, a five-point Likert scale previously used in lymphoma studies. In addition, SUVmax was determined. RESULTS: All assessment methods were able to significantly predict RC but not OS. The methods were also able to significantly predict remission of tumour after completion of RT. Of the 105 PET scans, 19 were judged as equivocal on visual inspection. The Likert scale was preferable to SUVmax for grouping patients as responders or nonresponders. CONCLUSION: All methods (visual inspection, SUVmax and the Likert scale) identified responders and nonresponders and predicted RC. A Likert scale is a promising tool to reduce to a minimum the problem of PET scans judged as equivocal. Consensus regarding qualitative assessment would facilitate PET reporting in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck cancer; Patient outcome assessment; Positron emission tomography; Qualitative evaluation; Radiotherapy; Therapy assessment
Authors: Sandro V Porceddu; David I Pryor; Elizabeth Burmeister; Bryan H Burmeister; Michael G Poulsen; Matthew C Foote; Benedict Panizza; Scott Coman; David McFarlane; William Coman Journal: Head Neck Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Wendi Qian; Edward J Somer; Antonella Franceschetto; Bruno Bagni; Eva Brun; Helén Almquist; Annika Loft; Liselotte Højgaard; Massimo Federico; Andrea Gallamini; Paul Smith; Peter Johnson; John Radford; Michael J O'Doherty Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: V A Passero; B F Branstetter; Y Shuai; D E Heron; M K Gibson; S Y Lai; S W Kim; J R Grandis; R L Ferris; J T Johnson; A Argiris Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ayse Tuba Kendi; David Brandon; Jeffrey Switchenko; Jeffery Trad Wadsworth; Mark W El-Deiry; Nabil F Saba; David M Schuster; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-01
Authors: Peter Lin; Myo Min; Mark Lee; Lois Holloway; Dion Forstner; Victoria Bray; Allan Fowler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Zachary Patel; Jennifer A Schroeder; Paul M Bunch; Joni K Evans; Cole R Steber; Adam G Johnson; Joshua C Farris; Ryan T Hughes Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 8.961
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: Maja Guberina; Kaid Darwiche; Hubertus Hautzel; Till Ploenes; Christoph Pöttgen; Nika Guberina; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu; Axel Wetter; Dirk Theegarten; Clemens Aigner; Wilfried Ernst Erich Eberhardt; Martin Schuler; Rüdiger Karpf-Wissel; Martin Stuschke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 9.236
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