Yasemin Koksel1, Mehmet Gencturk2, Anthony Spano3, Margaret Reynolds4, Sara Roshan5, Zuzan Caycı6. 1. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: ykksel@umn.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: genct003@umn.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: spano027@umn.edu. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: reynolds@umn.edu. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: cayci001@umn.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine whether Likert scale (Deauville criteria) can be used to classify oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) patients as 'responders' and 'nonresponders' by utilizing FDG-PET/CT for primary tumor site. The second aim is to compare the performance of methods used in interpretation of posttreatment PET/CT scans (Likert scale, SUVmax, ratios of SUVmax primary lesion to mediastinum 'SUVmax P/M' and SUVmax primary lesion to liver 'SUVmax P/L') in predicting treatment response. METHODS: Seventy-seven PET/CT scans were assessed by Deauville criteria, five-point Likert scale. SUVmax of primary lesion, SUVmax primary to mediastinum and SUVmax primary to liver ratios on first follow-up PET/CT were measured and calculated. Pathology results, clinical and imaging follow-up were used as standart reference. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive value of Likert scale were found to be 80%, 89.5%, 53.3% and 96.8% respectively. When Likert scale and PET parameters were compared, no statistically significant difference was found. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was used to determine the optimal cut-off points for SUVmax (found as 4) and for ratios (SUVmax P/M = 1.67and SUVmax P/L = 1.7) with the highest specificity and NPV. CONCLUSION: Likert scale adequately categorize patients as 'responders' and 'non-responders'. Since its NPV is high and interpretation is relatively easy, it can be utilized to evaluate OPSCC response to treatment in first follow up FDG PET/CT.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine whether Likert scale (Deauville criteria) can be used to classify oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) patients as 'responders' and 'nonresponders' by utilizing FDG-PET/CT for primary tumor site. The second aim is to compare the performance of methods used in interpretation of posttreatment PET/CT scans (Likert scale, SUVmax, ratios of SUVmax primary lesion to mediastinum 'SUVmax P/M' and SUVmax primary lesion to liver 'SUVmax P/L') in predicting treatment response. METHODS: Seventy-seven PET/CT scans were assessed by Deauville criteria, five-point Likert scale. SUVmax of primary lesion, SUVmax primary to mediastinum and SUVmax primary to liver ratios on first follow-up PET/CT were measured and calculated. Pathology results, clinical and imaging follow-up were used as standart reference. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive value of Likert scale were found to be 80%, 89.5%, 53.3% and 96.8% respectively. When Likert scale and PET parameters were compared, no statistically significant difference was found. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was used to determine the optimal cut-off points for SUVmax (found as 4) and for ratios (SUVmax P/M = 1.67and SUVmax P/L = 1.7) with the highest specificity and NPV. CONCLUSION: Likert scale adequately categorize patients as 'responders' and 'non-responders'. Since its NPV is high and interpretation is relatively easy, it can be utilized to evaluate OPSCC response to treatment in first follow up FDG PET/CT.
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: Magdalena Skubal; Benedict Mc Larney; Pamela Causa-Andrieu; Edwin C Pratt; Sudeep Das; Peter Sawan; Abdallah Araji; Christopher Riedl; Kunal Vyas; David Tuch; Jan Grimm Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 29.234
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Xifeng Zhang; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Stefan Hellinger; Anthony Yeung Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2020-01
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
Authors: Steve Connor; Cherry Sit; Mustafa Anjari; Teresa Szyszko; Joel Dunn; Irumee Pai; Gary Cook; Vicky Goh Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-05-07