Edward E Graves1, Rodney J Hicks2, David Binns2, Mathias Bressel3, Quynh-Thu Le4, Lester Peters2, Richard J Young3, Danny Rischin5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, 269 Campus Dr., CCSR South Rm. 1255A, Stanford, CA, 94305-5152, USA. egraves@stanford.edu. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Division of Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, 269 Campus Dr., CCSR South Rm. 1255A, Stanford, CA, 94305-5152, USA. 5. Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While methods for imaging tumor hypoxia with positron emission tomography (PET) have been developed, optimal methods for interpreting and utilizing these datasets in the clinic remain unclear. In this study, we analyzed hypoxia PET images of head and neck cancer patients and compared imaging metrics with human papilloma virus (HPV) status and clinical outcome. METHODS: Forty-one patients treated as part of a phase III trial of the hypoxic cytotoxin tirapazamine (TROG 02.02) were imaged with PET using fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA). FDG and FAZA PET images were interpreted qualitatively and quantitatively, and compared with tumor T stage, HPV status, and treatment outcome using multivariate statistics. RESULTS: PET signals in the tumor and lymph nodes exhibited significant intra- and inter-patient variability. The FAZA hypoxic volume demonstrated a significant correlation with tumor T stage. PET-hypoxic tumors treated with cisplatin exhibited significantly worse treatment outcomes relative to PET-oxic tumors or PET-hypoxic tumors treated with tirapazamine. CONCLUSION: Quantitative analysis of FAZA PET yielded metrics that correlated with clinical T stage and were capable of stratifying patient outcome. These results encourage further development of this technology, with particular emphasis on establishment of robust quantitative methods.
PURPOSE: While methods for imaging tumor hypoxia with positron emission tomography (PET) have been developed, optimal methods for interpreting and utilizing these datasets in the clinic remain unclear. In this study, we analyzed hypoxia PET images of head and neck cancerpatients and compared imaging metrics with human papilloma virus (HPV) status and clinical outcome. METHODS: Forty-one patients treated as part of a phase III trial of the hypoxic cytotoxin tirapazamine (TROG 02.02) were imaged with PET using fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA). FDG and FAZA PET images were interpreted qualitatively and quantitatively, and compared with tumor T stage, HPV status, and treatment outcome using multivariate statistics. RESULTS: PET signals in the tumor and lymph nodes exhibited significant intra- and inter-patient variability. The FAZA hypoxic volume demonstrated a significant correlation with tumor T stage. PET-hypoxic tumors treated with cisplatin exhibited significantly worse treatment outcomes relative to PET-oxic tumors or PET-hypoxic tumors treated with tirapazamine. CONCLUSION: Quantitative analysis of FAZA PET yielded metrics that correlated with clinical T stage and were capable of stratifying patient outcome. These results encourage further development of this technology, with particular emphasis on establishment of robust quantitative methods.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck cancer; Hypoxia; PET; Radiation therapy
Authors: M F Adam; E C Gabalski; D A Bloch; J W Oehlert; J M Brown; A A Elsaid; H A Pinto; D J Terris Journal: Head Neck Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Marianne Nordsmark; Søren M Bentzen; Volker Rudat; David Brizel; Eric Lartigau; Peter Stadler; Axel Becker; Markus Adam; Michael Molls; Juergen Dunst; David J Terris; Jens Overgaard Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-08-10 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Morand Piert; Hans-Jürgen Machulla; Maria Picchio; Gerald Reischl; Sybille Ziegler; Piyush Kumar; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Roswitha Beck; Alexander J B McEwan; Leonard I Wiebe; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joseph G Rajendran; David L Schwartz; Janet O'Sullivan; Lanell M Peterson; Patrick Ng; Jeffrey Scharnhorst; John R Grierson; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roswitha Beck; Barbara Röper; Janette Maria Carlsen; Marc Cornelis Huisman; Julia Aloisia Lebschi; Nicolaus Andratschke; Maria Picchio; Michael Souvatzoglou; Hans-Jürgen Machulla; Morand Piert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Mircea Ivan; Melissa L Fishel; Oana M Tudoran; Karen E Pollok; Xue Wu; Paul J Smith Journal: Semin Cancer Biol Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 15.707
Authors: Tet Woo Lee; Amy Lai; Julia K Harms; Dean C Singleton; Benjamin D Dickson; Andrew M J Macann; Michael P Hay; Stephen M F Jamieson Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 6.639