P Wangaryattawanich1, B F Branstetter1,2,3, J D Ly1, U Duvvuri2, D E Heron2,4, T J Rath5. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (P.W., B.F.B., J.D.L.). 2. Otolaryngology (B.F.B., U.D., D.E.H.). 3. Biomedical Informatics (B.F.B.). 4. Radiation Oncology (D.E.H.), School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Neuroradiology Section, Department of Radiology (T.J.R.), Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona. Rath.Tanya@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System is a standardized reporting system intended to risk stratify patients treated for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The purpose of this study is to investigate the positive predictive value of the Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 3 and 4 on posttreatment PET/CT in patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma between 2006 and 2018. Patients whose posttreatment PET/CT scans were interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 (suspicious) or 4 (definitive recurrence) at the primary site, regional nodes, or at distant sites were included. The reference standard was histopathology or unequivocal imaging or clinical evidence of treatment failure. The positive predictive values of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 and 4 posttreatment PET/CT were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 128 patients with posttreatment PET/CT interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 at the primary site, regional nodes, or distant sites were proved to have treatment failure at the suspicious sites, yielding an overall positive predictive value of 56% (95% CI, 48%-65%). The positive predictive values of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 by subsite were as follows: primary site, 56% (44/79); regional nodes, 65% (34/52); and distant sites, 79% (42/53). All 69 patients with posttreatment PET/CT interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 had true treatment failure, yielding a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%): primary site, 100% (28/28); regional nodes, 100% (32/32); and distant sites, 100% (29/29). CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 on posttreatment PET/CT is relatively low. Thus, Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 findings should be confirmed with tissue sampling before instituting new salvage treatment regimens to avoid unnecessary overtreatment and its associated toxicities. Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 reliably indicates recurrent disease.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System is a standardized reporting system intended to risk stratify patients treated for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The purpose of this study is to investigate the positive predictive value of the Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 3 and 4 on posttreatment PET/CT in patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma between 2006 and 2018. Patients whose posttreatment PET/CT scans were interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 (suspicious) or 4 (definitive recurrence) at the primary site, regional nodes, or at distant sites were included. The reference standard was histopathology or unequivocal imaging or clinical evidence of treatment failure. The positive predictive values of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 and 4 posttreatment PET/CT were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 128 patients with posttreatment PET/CT interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 at the primary site, regional nodes, or distant sites were proved to have treatment failure at the suspicious sites, yielding an overall positive predictive value of 56% (95% CI, 48%-65%). The positive predictive values of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 by subsite were as follows: primary site, 56% (44/79); regional nodes, 65% (34/52); and distant sites, 79% (42/53). All 69 patients with posttreatment PET/CT interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 had true treatment failure, yielding a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%): primary site, 100% (28/28); regional nodes, 100% (32/32); and distant sites, 100% (29/29). CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 on posttreatment PET/CT is relatively low. Thus, Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 findings should be confirmed with tissue sampling before instituting new salvage treatment regimens to avoid unnecessary overtreatment and its associated toxicities. Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 reliably indicates recurrent disease.
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: Reema Goel; William Moore; Baran Sumer; Saad Khan; David Sher; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ashley H Aiken; Tanya J Rath; Yoshimi Anzai; Barton F Branstetter; Jenny K Hoang; Richard H Wiggins; Amy F Juliano; Christine Glastonbury; C Douglas Phillips; Richard Brown; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: M McDermott; M Hughes; T Rath; J T Johnson; D E Heron; G J Kubicek; S W Kim; R L Ferris; U Duvvuri; J P Ohr; B F Branstetter Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
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: P Wangaryattawanich; B F Branstetter; M Hughes; D A Clump; D E Heron; T J Rath Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L D Patel; K Bridgham; J Ciriello; R Almardawi; J Leon; J Hostetter; S Yazbek; P Raghavan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Jajodia; G Mandal; V Yadav; J Khoda; J Goyal; S Pasricha; S Puri; A Dewan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.966