Robin J D Prestwich1,2, Moses Arunsingh3, Jim Zhong4, Karen E Dyker3, Sriram Vaidyanathan4, Andrew F Scarsbrook4,5. 1. Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. Robin.Prestwich@nhs.net. 2. Level 4, Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Beckett St., Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. Robin.Prestwich@nhs.net. 3. Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds, UK. 5. Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The limited positive predictive value of an incomplete response on PET-CT following (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) means that the optimal management strategy remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to assess the utility of a 'second-look' interval PET-CT. METHODS: Patients with HNSCC who were treated with (chemo)radiotherapy between 2008 and 2017 and underwent (i) baseline and (ii) response assessment PET-CT and (iii) second-look PET-CT following incomplete (positive or equivocal scan) response were included. Endpoints were conversion rate to complete response (CR) and test characteristics of the second-look PET-CT. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-two patients with HNSCC underwent response assessment PET-CT at a median of 17 weeks post-radiotherapy. Following an incomplete response on PET-CT, 40 patients underwent a second-look PET-CT at a median of 13 weeks (range 6-25) from the first response PET-CT. Thirty-four out of 40 (85%) patients had oropharyngeal carcinoma. Twenty-four out of 40 (60%) second-look PET-CT scans converted to a complete locoregional response. The primary tumour conversion rate was 15/27 (56%) and the lymph node conversion rate was 14/19 (74%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of the second-look PET-CT were 75%, 75%, 25% and 96% for the primary tumour and 100%, 92%, 40% and 100% for lymph nodes. There were no cases of progression following conversion to CR in the primary site or lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who undergo a second-look PET-CT convert to a CR. The NPV of a second-look PET-CT is high, suggesting the potential to avoid surgical intervention. KEY POINTS: • PET-CT is a useful tool for response assessment following (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. • An incomplete response on PET-CT has a limited positive predictive value and optimal management is uncertain. • These data show that with a 'second-look' interval PET-CT, the majority of patients convert to a complete metabolic response. When there is doubt about clinical and radiological response, a 'second-look' PET-CT can be used to spare patients unnecessary surgical intervention.
OBJECTIVES: The limited positive predictive value of an incomplete response on PET-CT following (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) means that the optimal management strategy remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to assess the utility of a 'second-look' interval PET-CT. METHODS:Patients with HNSCC who were treated with (chemo)radiotherapy between 2008 and 2017 and underwent (i) baseline and (ii) response assessment PET-CT and (iii) second-look PET-CT following incomplete (positive or equivocal scan) response were included. Endpoints were conversion rate to complete response (CR) and test characteristics of the second-look PET-CT. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-two patients with HNSCC underwent response assessment PET-CT at a median of 17 weeks post-radiotherapy. Following an incomplete response on PET-CT, 40 patients underwent a second-look PET-CT at a median of 13 weeks (range 6-25) from the first response PET-CT. Thirty-four out of 40 (85%) patients had oropharyngeal carcinoma. Twenty-four out of 40 (60%) second-look PET-CT scans converted to a complete locoregional response. The primary tumour conversion rate was 15/27 (56%) and the lymph node conversion rate was 14/19 (74%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of the second-look PET-CT were 75%, 75%, 25% and 96% for the primary tumour and 100%, 92%, 40% and 100% for lymph nodes. There were no cases of progression following conversion to CR in the primary site or lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who undergo a second-look PET-CT convert to a CR. The NPV of a second-look PET-CT is high, suggesting the potential to avoid surgical intervention. KEY POINTS: • PET-CT is a useful tool for response assessment following (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. • An incomplete response on PET-CT has a limited positive predictive value and optimal management is uncertain. • These data show that with a 'second-look' interval PET-CT, the majority of patients convert to a complete metabolic response. When there is doubt about clinical and radiological response, a 'second-look' PET-CT can be used to spare patients unnecessary surgical intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy; Head and neck cancer; PET-CT; Radiotherapy; Recurrence
Authors: Ashley H Aiken; April Farley; Kristen L Baugnon; Amanda Corey; Mark El-Deiry; Richard Duszak; Jonathan Beitler; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: C Nelissen; J Sherriff; T Jones; P Guest; S Colley; P Sanghera; A Hartley Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Kyle Wang; Terence Z Wong; Robert J Amdur; William M Mendenhall; Nathan C Sheets; Rebecca Green; Brian D Thorp; Samip N Patel; Trevor G Hackman; Adam M Zanation; Mark C Weissler; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Alfio Ferlito; June Corry; Carl E Silver; Ashok R Shaha; K Thomas Robbins; Alessandra Rinaldo Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Hisham Mehanna; Wai-Lup Wong; Christopher C McConkey; Joy K Rahman; Max Robinson; Andrew G J Hartley; Christopher Nutting; Ned Powell; Hoda Al-Booz; Martin Robinson; Elizabeth Junor; Mohammed Rizwanullah; Sandra V von Zeidler; Hulya Wieshmann; Claire Hulme; Alison F Smith; Peter Hall; Janet Dunn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Didem C Oksuz; Robin J Prestwich; Brendan Carey; Stuart Wilson; Mustafa S Senocak; Ananya Choudhury; Karen Dyker; Catherine Coyle; Mehmet Sen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: H Mehanna; M Evans; M Beasley; S Chatterjee; M Dilkes; J Homer; J O'Hara; M Robinson; R Shaw; P Sloan Journal: J Laryngol Otol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.469
Authors: Zsuzsanna Iyizoba-Ebozue; Sarah Billingsley; Russell Frood; Sriram Vaidyanathan; Andrew Scarsbrook; Robin J D Prestwich Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 6.575