Prognostic value of baseline [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters MTV, TLG and asphericity in an international multicenter cohort of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

PURPOSE: [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) parameters have shown prognostic value in nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC), mostly in monocenter studies. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of standard and novel PET parameters in a multicenter cohort of patients.
METHODS: The established PET parameters metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) as well as the novel parameter tumor asphericity (ASP) were evaluated in a retrospective multicenter cohort of 114 NPC patients with FDG-PET staging, treated with (chemo)radiation at 8 international institutions. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), distant metastases-free survival (FFDM), and locoregional control (LRC) was performed for clinical and PET parameters.
RESULTS: When analyzing metric PET parameters, ASP showed a significant association with EFS (p = 0.035) and a trend for OS (p = 0.058). MTV was significantly associated with EFS (p = 0.026), OS (p = 0.008) and LRC (p = 0.012) and TLG with LRC (p = 0.019). TLG and MTV showed a very high correlation (Spearman's rho = 0.95), therefore TLG was subesequently not further analysed. Optimal cutoff values for defining high and low risk groups were determined by maximization of the p-value in univariate Cox regression considering all possible cutoff values. Generation of stable cutoff values was feasible for MTV (p<0.001), ASP (p = 0.023) and combination of both (MTV+ASP = occurrence of one or both risk factors, p<0.001) for OS and for MTV regarding the endpoints OS (p<0.001) and LRC (p<0.001). In multivariable Cox (age >55 years + one binarized PET parameter), MTV >11.1ml (hazard ratio (HR): 3.57, p<0.001) and ASP > 14.4% (HR: 3.2, p = 0.031) remained prognostic for OS. MTV additionally remained prognostic for LRC (HR: 4.86 p<0.001) and EFS (HR: 2.51 p = 0.004). Bootstrapping analyses showed that a combination of high MTV and ASP improved prognostic value for OS compared to each single variable significantly (p = 0.005 and p = 0.04, respectively). When using the cohort from China (n = 57 patients) for establishment of prognostic parameters and all other patients for validation (n = 57 patients), MTV could be successfully validated as prognostic parameter regarding OS, EFS and LRC (all p-values <0.05 for both cohorts).
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, PET parameters were associated with outcome of NPC patients. MTV showed a robust association with OS, EFS and LRC. Our data suggest that combination of MTV and ASP may potentially further improve the risk stratification of NPC patients.

Introduction

Nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC) are a subset of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) with an etiology, treatment, and prognosis differing from other HNSCC. In Europe and Northern America, the incidence of NPC is low, but there are regions, including Southern China, where NPC are endemic, while other regions like Northern Africa or Middle East exhibit an intermediate incidence. Standard treatment of non-metastatic NPC is radiotherapy or chemoradiation (CRT) in case of locally advanced disease. Compared to non-human papilloma virus (HPV) associated HNSCC of other locations, NPC possess a relatively high radiosensitivity. Most cases of NPC seem to be related to an infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), other classical risk factors for HNSCC like smoking usually play a minor causative role. Due to the relatively young age of patients with overall good prognosis, individually tailored treatment is a pivotal issue. This could comprise either de-escalation/ escalation of radiation therapy or escalation of concurrent chemotherapy with induction or adjuvant chemo- and/ or immunotherapy [1-3].

Several publications suggest that 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) parameters bear prognostic value in NPC and could potentially be used for treatment individualization. Two meta-analyses investigated the prognostic role of FDG-PET in NPC and found that the parameters maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) bear a significant prognostic value for various important clinical endpoints, including event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) [4, 5]. Some recent publications suggest that assessment of tumor heterogeneity by PET may also provide prognostic value [6, 7]. Our group and others have identified tumor asphericity (ASP) as a prognostic parameter in HNSCC [8-10].

The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of several FDG-PET parameters, including ASP, in a multicenter cohort of European, American and Chinese NPC patients. None of these patients had been included in the mentioned meta-analyses.

Patients and methods

Ethics

The research has been reviewed and approved by institutional ethical committees of all the participating centers.

Patients

Inclusion criteria for this study were: histologically confirmed NPC without evidence of distant metastases, definitive radiotherapy or CRT with curative intent, and availability of pre-treatment FDG-PET. We analyzed PET images and patient data from Xiamen, China and Charité Berlin, Germany plus additional images and patient data from three American databases, available in the cancer imaging archive [11-14]. Data for the Chinese patients and the patients of the cancer imaging archive have been published previously [15-18].

The whole dataset includes 57 patients from Xiamen, China, 24 patients from Berlin, Germany and 33 patients from the above mentioned three public available datasets. For additional independent validation of identified PET parameters patients from China were used for establishment of prognostic parameters and all other (European and American) patients for independent validation.

Imaging

All patients underwent a hybrid FDG PET/CT examination prior to therapy. Data acquisition started 75.6 +/- 27 min after injection of 132–770 MBq FDG. Examinations in Xiamen (3D PET acquisition, 90 seconds (s) per bed position) were performed with a Discovery STE (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI, USA). PET raw data were reconstructed using CT based attenuation weighted OSEM reconstruction (2 iterations, 20 subsets, 6 mm FWHM Gaussian filter). Examinations in Berlin (3D PET acquisition, Median 150 s per bed position, range 90–210 s) were performed with a Gemini TF 16 (Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, OH, USA). PET data were reconstructed using BLOB-OS-TF reconstruction (Philips Astonish TF technology: 3 iterations, 33 subsets; voxel size: 4.42 x 4.42 x 4.42 mm3). Canadian data were acquired at four different sites. Details on the acquisition protocols can be found in [16].

Treatment

Patients with stages T1 or T2 and N0 were usually treated with radiotherapy alone, while more advanced stages were treated with CRT, except if patient age, comorbidities or patient refusal contraindicated concomitant therapy.

Treatment details of Canadian patients can be found in the supplementary files of the original publication [16]. All patients received intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric arc modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) with a total dose of 70 Gray (Gy) in 35 fractions, 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions, 68.8 Gy in 32 fractions or 67.5 Gy in 30 fractions. If patients received concomitant chemotherapy, this consisted mostly of cisplatin or carboplatin plus paclitaxel. Patients were treated between 2006 and 2014.

Treatment details of Chinese patients have been published previously [15]. Most patients received IMRT with a total tumor dose of 66–78 Gy in 31 to 39 fractions. If CRT was performed, most patients received cisplatin, some patients received duplet therapy consisting of cisplatin plus 5-fluoruracil or cisplatin plus paclitaxel. Patients were treated between March 2009 and May 2012.

Patients from Berlin received VMAT with a total dose of 57.5 to 76.6 Gy. Most patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) delivering single fractions of 2.2 Gy, some patients received hyperfractionated radiotherapy with twice daily 1.4 Gy. In case of concomitant chemotherapy, either cisplatin or cisplatin in combination with 5-FU was the most commonly applied regime. One patient received mitomycin C and one patient cetuximab. Patients were treated between August 2009 and March 2018.

Data analysis

The metabolically active part of the primary tumor was delineated in the PET data by an semi-automatic algorithm based on thresholding relative to the maximum activity with adaptation for local background [19, 20]. The resulting regions of interest (ROI) were inspected visually by an experienced observer (SZ) who was blinded to patients outcome. Manual correction was applied in 8 out of 107 patients who exhibited only low diffuse tracer accumulation in the respective lesion. For the delineated ROIs, ASP was computed as where V is the volume of the ROI and S is its surface. ASP is equal to zero for spheres. For nonspherical shapes ASP > 0 and is a quantitative measure of the degree of deviation from a spherical shape. In addition, the metabolic tumor volume (MTV), the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and the total lesion glycolysis (TLG = MTV x SUVmean) were computed. It should be noted that in two PET examinations, time point of injection was missing in the data (presumably due to incorrect pseudonymization). The corresponding patients, therefore, had to be excluded from analysis of SUVmax and TLG. Uptake time after injection was not standardized. Therefore, all SUVs were corrected for scan time to T0 = 75 min after injection using where T is the time at which the SUV was actually measured and b = 0.31 describes the shape and decrease of the arterial input function over time [21]. Since only time corrected values were investigated, the index ‘tc’ is omitted in the following. ROI definition and analysis was performed using the ROVER software, version 3.0.41 (ABX, Radeberg, Germany).

Statistical analysis

Survival analysis was performed with respect to overall survival (OS), locoregional tumor control (LRC), distant metastases-free survival (FFDM), and event-free survival (EFS, defined as death or any recurrence or occurrence of DM) from the start of therapy to death and/or event. Patients who did not keep follow-up appointments and for whom information on survival or tumor status was thus unavailable were censored with the date of last follow-up. The association of OS, LRC, FFDM, and EFS with clinically relevant parameters (age, EBV status, T stage, N stage, and UICC stage) as well as quantitative PET parameters was analyzed using univariable Cox proportional hazard regression in which the PET parameters were included as metric variables. PET parameters showing a significant association or a trend for significance (p ≤ 0.1) in this analysis were further analyzed in univariable Cox regression using binarized PET parameters. Binarization was performed using the cutoff value with the highest hazard ratio (HR) in univariable Cox regression for each variable. To avoid too small group sizes, only values leading to a minimum group size of 15% of the whole group were considered as potential cutoff. The cutoff values were separately computed for OS, EFS, LRC, and FFDM. Cutoff values leading to p < 0.05 were further investigated for stability by determining the full range of cutoff values around the optimal cutoff for which a trend for significance remained in univariable Cox regression. The probability of survival was computed and rendered as Kaplan-Meier curves. Independence of parameters was analyzed by multivariable Cox regression. When combining two prognostic PET parameters, combination was defined as co-occurence of both prognostic negative parameters. HR were compared using the bootstrap method (105 samples) to determine the statistical distribution of (HR1—HR2) from which the relevant p value then was derived. Statistical significance was assumed at a p value of less than 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with the R language and environment for statistical computing version 3.6.2 [22].

Results

Median follow-up time in surviving patients was 87 months and 66 months in all patients (inter-quartile range: 53–108 months and 27–95 months, respectively). OS, EFS, and LRC rates five years after start of treatment were 74%, 60%, and 79%, respectively. These treatment results are in line with results of current phase III studies on NPC [2, 3]. Table 1 summarizes patient and treatment characteristics of all patients included in the study.

Table 1

Patient and treatment characteristics.

Characteristics	Value (percentage)
Treatment site
CHUM, Montréal, Canada	1 (1)
QIN imaging cohort	3 (3)
MD Anderson, Houston, Texas	4 (4)
CHUS, Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada	5 (4)
HMR, Montréal, Canada	6 (5)
HGJ, Montréal, Canada	14 (12)
Charité, Berlin, Germany	24 (21)
XCH, Xiamen, China	57 (50)
Age (years)
Mean +/- SD	51 +/- 15
Median	53
Sex
Unknown	1 (0.9)
Male	88 (77.2)
Female	25 (21.9)
EBV status
n/a	44 (38.6)
EBV positive	64 (56.1)
EBV negative	6 (5.3)
T stage
T1	21 (18.4)
T2	23 (20.2)
T3	43 (37.7)
T4	27 (23.7)
N stage
N0	13 (11)
N1	31 (27.2)
N2	53 (46.5)
N3	17 (14.9)
UICC stage
I	3 (2.6)
II	14 (12.3)
III	56 (49.1)
IV	41 (36)
Radiotherapy
Radiation dose in Gray macroscopic tumor (range)	57.5–76.6
concomitant chemotherapy
n/a	33 (28.9)
yes	68 (59.7)
no	13 (11.4)

In a first step, the association between clinical parameters and metric PET parameters and outcome of patients was analyzed by univariate Cox regression analysis. The clinical parameters age, N stage, and EBV negative tumors were significantly associated with decreased FFDM (p = 0.004, p = 0.046, and p = 0.022, respectively). Additionally, younger patients and patients with EBV positive tumors showed a better OS (p = 0.003 and p = 0.046). Furthermore, higher age was associated with decreased EFS (p = 0.001) and LRC (p = 0.014). Regarding metric PET parameters (Table 2), a significant association between higher tumor MTV or higher ASP and decreased EFS (p = 0.026 for MTV and p = 0.035 for ASP) was observed. MTV and TLG showed a significant association with OS (p = 0.008 and p = 0.049) and ASP showed a trend for association with OS (p = 0.058). MTV and TLG showed a significant association with LRC (p = 0.012 and p = 0.019, respectively).

Table 2

Univariable Cox regression with respect to EFS, OS, LRC and FFDM.

Parameter	HR	95% CI	p value
EFS
Gender male	1.94	0.82–4.61	0.13
Age > 55 years	2.23	1.21–4.1	0.001
T stage > 2	1.5	0.78–2.89	0.22
N stage > 1	1.67	0.85–3.26	0.13
UICC stage > II	4.05	0.98–16.75	0.054
EBV negative	2.62	0.77–8.94	0.12
radiotherapy only	0.73	0.22–2.45	0.61
MTV	1.03	1.001–1.06	0.026
TLG	1.002	1–1.004	0.082
SUVmax	1.02	0.97–1.08	0.45
ASP	1.02	1.001–1.04	0.035
OS
Gender male	1.43	0.54–3.77	0.47
Age > 55 years	3.21	1.5–6.88	0.003
T-stage > 2	1.71	0.75–3.88	0.2
N-stage > 1	1.85	0.78–4.35	0.16
UICC-stage > II	5.11	0.69–37.64	0.11
EBV negative	3.67	1.02–13.16	0.046
radiotherapy only	0.72	0.17–3.16	0.67
MTV	1.04	1.01–1.08	0.008
TLG	1.002	1.001–1.005	0.049
SUVmax	1.02	0.95–1.08	0.65
ASP	1.02	1–1.05	0.058
LRC
Gender male	2.08	0.62–7.01	0.24
Age > 55 years	2.82	1.23–6.49	0.014
T-stage > 2	1.91	0.75–4.85	0.17
N-stage > 1	1.17	0.5–2.76	0.72
UICC-stage > II	2.05	0.48–8.74	0.33
EBV negative	1.68	0.21–13.44	0.62
radiotherapy only	0.45	0.06–3.49	0.45
MTV	1.04	1.01–1.08	0.012
TLG	1.003	1.001–1.006	0.019
SUVmax	1.05	0.98–1.12	0.2
ASP	1.009	0.98–1.04	0.54
FFDM
Gender male	2.15	0.49–9.49	0.31
Age > 55 years	4.46	1.61–12.35	0.004
T-stage > 2	0.67	0.25–1.79	0.43
N-stage > 1	4.52	1.03–19.89	0.046
UICC-stage > II	3.04	0.4–23.04	0.28
EBV negative	6.97	1.33–36.62	0.022
radiotherapy only	0.78	0.1–6.34	0.82
MTV	0.97	0.9–1.05	0.43
TLG	0.997	0.989–1.004	0.37
SUVmax	0.96	0.87–1.06	0.41
ASP	1.007	0.973–1.043	0.69

PET parameters were included as metric parameters. P values ≤ 0.1 are shown in bold. HR = hazard ratio, CI = confidence interval.

After binarization, univariable Cox regression showed a significant association of ASP with EFS (p = 0.023) and OS (p = 0.027) and MTV with OS (p<0.001), EFS (p<0.001) and LRC (p<0.001). Correlation analyses of all PET parameters revealed a strong correlation between MTV and TLG, but no strong correlation between ASP and MTV (Spearman´s rho = 0.35, see S1 Table for correlations of all PET parameters), and therefore ASP + MTV were combined for OS and showed a strong association with outcome (MTV+ASP, p<0.001). Since ASP may be more relevant in large tumors, we investigated if the combination of MTV and ASP bears additional prognostic value compared to each individual parameter. We performed bootstrap analysis for the parameter MTV and the combination of MTV and ASP with OS as endpoint. These analyses revealed an improved association with OS for the combination of both parameters (p = 0.005 and p = 0.04, respectively). Table 3 shows details of univariable Cox regression for all binarized PET parameters. Due to the high correlation with MTV, TLG was not further investigated.

Table 3

Univariable Cox regression with respect to EFS, OS, and LRC.

Parameter	Cutoff	HR	95% CI	p value
EFS
MTV	> 11.1ml	3.14	1.7–5.82	< 0.001
ASP	> 30.3%	2.02	1.1–3.72	0.023
MTV + ASP		3.82	1.87–7.82	< 0.001
OS
MTV	> 11.1 ml	3.91	1.85–8.26	< 0.001
ASP	> 14.4%	3.3	1.14–9.51	0.027
MTV + ASP		4.67	2.21–9.86	< 0.001
LRC
MTV	> 11.1 ml	5.33	2.29–12.39	< 0.001

PET parameters with at p ≤ 0.1 in univariable Cox for metric variables were included as binarized parameters. P values ≤ 0.1 are shown in bold. HR = hazard ratio, CI = confidence interval.

Cutoff stability testing revealed that MTV seems to discriminate across a relatively broad range of values with respect to OS, EFS and LRC and ASP with regard to OS. However, ASP only led to a significant discrimination of risk-groups within a narrow range of cutoff values with respect to EFS, see S2 Table for details. Due to the small range of ASP in regard to EFS, ASP was not further evaluated for the EFS endpoint.

In multivariable Cox regression of each PET parameter with clinical parameters (Table 4), MTV, ASP and the combination of both remained significantly associated with OS (p<0.001, p = 0.031 and p<0.001, respectively; Fig 1) and MTV was significantly associated with LRC (p<0.001; Fig 2) and EFS (P = 0.004; Fig 2). Sub-group analyses revealed that the combination of ASP and MTV delivered prognostic value in regard to OS irrespective of a treatment center (Chinese versus Euro-American), see S1 Fig.

Table 4

Multivariable Cox regression with respect to EFS, OS, and LRC.

Parameter	HR	95% CI	p value
OS
Age > 55 years	2.95	1.37–6.35	0.006
MTV > 11.1 ml	3.57	1.68–7.59	< 0.001
ASP > 14.4%	3.2	1.11–9.23	0.031
MTV + ASP	4.18	1.96–8.89	<0.001
LRC
Age > 55 years	2.37	1.02–5.49	0.045
MTV > 11.1 ml	4.86	2.07–11.4	<0.001
EFS
UICC stage	3.66	0.87–15.4	0.077
Age	2.14	1.13–4.07	0.02
MTV	2.51	1.33–4.71	0.004

PET parameters were included as binarized parameters. Each PET parameter was analyzed separately together with clinical parameters. P values ≤ 0.1 are shown in bold. Note that EBV status was not included in this analysis due to missing information in one third of patients. HR = hazard ratio, CI = confidence interval.

Fig 1

Kaplan-Meier curves of PET parameters MTV (A), ASP (B) and combination of both (C) with respect to OS.

Fig 2

Kaplan-Meier curves of the PET parameter MTV with respect to LRC (A) and EFS (B).

Additionally, it was investigated if PET parameters can be successfully validated by splitting patients into an exploration and a validation cohort. Therefore, the Chinese cohort was used as exploration cohort. The cut-offs for the PET parameters MTV and ASP were separately optimized for this cohort. Subsequently these cut-offs were applied to the remaining patients treated at the other centers. MTV discriminated significantly between risk groups for the endpoints OS (p = 0.043 exploration, p = 0.002 validation), EFS (p = 0.015 exploration, p = 0.01 validation) and LRC (p<0.001 exploration, p = 0.018 validation). ASP showed only a trend for significance in regard to OS (p = 0.064) in the exploration cohort. Taken together MTV could be established as strong prognostic factor regardless of the geographic location of the participating center. The results are shown in S2–S5 Figs.

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first international multicenter PET evaluation study of patients with NPC. Our data suggest that the established PET parameter MTV is best suited for stratification with regard to OS, LRC and EFS. No PET parameters showed an association with FFDM. The results on the high prognostic impact of MTV are in line with two recent meta-analyses [4, 5]. In contrast to our findings, a recent publication with 179 patients was able to show a correlation between the FDG-PET tumor parameter SUVmax and FFDM [23]. This discrepancy might be explained by the lower number of patients in our study or a different composition of tumor stages. In accordance with the current results, a study with 294 patients with advanced NPC showed that SUVmax of neck lymph nodes but not primary tumor SUVmax was associated with FFDM [24].

Another explanation for the poor performance of SUV could be the well-known limitations in reproducibility of SUV between examination time points, acquisition protocols, PET scanner and reconstruction algorithms [25, 26], which are especially manifest in multicenter studies. Recent publications demonstrated that the uptake time normalized tumor-to-blood SUV ratio (standardized uptake ratio, SUR) essentially removes most of these shortcomings [27, 28], which leads to a significantly better prognostic value compared to tumor SUV in other malignancies [29-31]. However, the blood SUV, which is necessary for SUR computation, could not be determined in about one half of the patients included in the present study since the aorta was not in the field of view. Mainly because the head and neck region was scanned with thermoplastic masks for radiation treatment planning, while the remaining body was imaged in a second examination without mask. Therefore, the question if SUR might be able to improve the prognostic value of tracer uptake in the present context remains open.

In our analysis, the stratification power of MTV was further improved by ASP. However, this has to be considered as an exploratory finding that needs to be confirmed by future, ideally prospective, analyses. Unfortunately, most larger (i.e. with more than 100 patients) PET studies on NC patients did not investigate the prognostic value of MTV or TLG but restricted analysis to SUV. To our knowledge only Chan and colleagues evaluated MTV in a larger cohort of 196 NC patients. Chan reported cutoff values for MTV (45ml) and TLG (330) that seem to be quite high compared to our cohort of patients [32]. Therefore we were not able to validate these cutoffs in this study (maximum cutoff for MTV 17.8ml and TLG 173, see S2 Table).

Several limitations of this study have to be mentioned. First, this is a retrospective analysis with all limitations inherent to this approach. Additionally, due to the partial use of publicly available imaging databases important clinical information like type of chemotherapy or Karnofsky performance status was not available at an individual patient level, and clinical parameters like EBV association were missing for several patients. In this regard also further prognostic or potentially prognostic parameters were not available, especially the EBV viral load, which showed an association with patients´ outcome in a large meta-analysis [33].

Our study design has several strengths: first, all original PET images were analyzed by a highly standardized workflow and semi-automatic delineation. Second, in the two above-mentioned meta-analyses, only Asian centers were included (12 of 12) or only one of 15 centers was located outside Asia (in Egypt, specifically). Data on European or American patients are sparse. To the best of our knowledge, there are so far only three publications on the prognostic value of PET parameters in European NPC patients available with limited number of patients. A recent publication investigated the prognostic impact of FDG-PET in a monocentric study with 49 Italian patients and found TLG and SUVmax to be significantly associated with OS of patients [34]. Another monocentric study on 52 Turkish patients found SUVmax of the primary tumor to be significantly associated with FFDM and disease-free survival, but not with OS [35]. Furthermore, another monocentric study from Turkey investigated the role of primary tumor and lymph node SUVmax on the outcome of 32 patients. The authors observed a statistical trend towards worse survival for patients with higher SUVmax of the primary tumor [36]. Unfortunately, both Turkish studies did not include further volumetric PET parameters like MTV or TLG. By splitting patients into two independent cohorts (Chinese patients and European/ American patients), we were able to validate the prognostic value of MTV in regard to the endpoints OS, EFS and LRC. Additionally it is astonishing that geographic location does not seem to influence the prognostic impact of MTV substantially.

In our analysis, half of the evaluated patients were treated in Europe or America, and the high prognostic impact of MTV and MTV+ASP could be confirmed in this international cohort of patients. Given the high prognostic value of MTV, it could potentially be relevant for treatment individualization regarding the prescribed radiation dose. Dose escalation within high FDG uptake regions seems to be a feasible approach. A recent publication with 213 NPC patients retrospectively investigated two groups of patients: one group of 101 patients received a PET based radiation dose escalation with about 12% increased radiation dose, while 112 patients received standard curative radiation doses. This PET boost approach improved LRC, FFDM and OS of patients [37]. This study is limited by the retrospective (non-randomized) design; however, improvement in patient outcome by a PET based treatment individualization could be demonstrated consistently for different endpoints in a comparably large patient sample. Additionally, given the high radiosensitivity of NPC, PET parameters might also be used for treatment de-escalation with the aim to preserve high rates of long-term curation in conjunct with decreased rates of radiation induced side effects.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that MTV is an excellent prognostic parameter for OS, LRC and EFS of NPC patients. The prognostic value of MTV seems to be independent from geographic location, as cut-off values generated in China also discriminated European and American patients. It seems that the stratification power of MTV might be further improved by the novel parameter ASP but this initial finding needs to be validated by further independent studies.

Correlation of PET parameters.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Minimum and maximum cutoff values of PET parameters, leading at least to a trend for significance (p≤0.1) upon univariate testing.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Sub-group analysis of the combined parameters MTV and ASP with OS as endpoint.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Kaplan-Meier curves of the PET parameter MTV in the Chinese exploration cohort (a) and all other centers as validation cohort (b) with respect to EFS.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Kaplan-Meier curves of the PET parameter MTV in the Chinese exploration cohort (a) and all other centers as validation cohort (b) with respect to OS.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Kaplan-Meier curves of the PET parameter MTV in the Chinese exploration cohort (a) and all other centers as validation cohort (b) with respect to LRC.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Kaplan-Meier curves of the PET parameter ASP in the Chinese exploration cohort (a) and all other centers as validation cohort (b) with respect to OS.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-13504

Prognostic value of baseline [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters MTV, TLG and asphericity in an international multicenter cohort of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sebastian Zschaeck,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 20 June 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Domenico Albano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"Dr. Amthauer reports personal fees from SIRTEX Medical Europe, grants from GE Healthcare, grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work;

All other authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors ).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I believe that the topic of the paper is interesting and of clinical interest. There are some points to clarify and discuss following reviewers suggestions.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a retrospective analysis of different datasets – one from their own institution (24 patients), one form a published cohort from China (57 patients) and one from an open source dataset from Canada (26 patients).

The aim was to investigate the best predictive value on FDG PETCT for OS, PFS and local control for head and neck cancer prior to curative radio or radio-chemotherapy.

General comment: This is a well written study incorporating PET parameters and asphericity to predict outcome. It is an interesting concept to use open source data to increase the cohort especially in relatively rare entities. It would increase the value of the presented work if a clear separation between test and validation cohort would be performed. As the authors stated correctly – the association of MTV or TLG with poor prognosis has been investigated in numerous mono-center studies. Scanner and protocol differences have a high impact on quantitative PET parameters – the question whether there is a robust cut off, allowing to predict outcome for NPC cancer is of interest. However, the way it is performed in the current study this is more of a collection in multiple centers with a single center analysis and not really a multicenter analysis. One could think of taking the cohort from Berlin and China to generate the cut offs and use Canada as a validation group.

With four outcome parameters you should think about correction of significance by a factor of 4: or you reduce the parameters to PFS and OS.

Specific comments:

Abstract Methods:

How did you generate the binarized cutoff values? A brief statement in the methods should be available.

How was (MTV + ASP) generated – either value above a certain cut off – same cut off used for the evaluation of MTV and ASP alone?

Intro:

did you look into the EBV distribution in your cohort? Was there a difference in FDG uptake between EBV + / - cases? (It was suggested that HPV+ HNSCC have less FDG uptake the HPV- tumors).

Methods:

Patients – you should state how many patients were collected where – not just in table one – but in the patients section – ideally also declaring the test and validation cohort.

The range of injected activity from 132-770 is rather wide – where there body weight adapted injection protocols?

Segmentation and time correction are done very carefully.

The definition of MTV+ASP is missing. Why “and” – did you also investigate “or”?

Results:

Tables should be accompanied with the abbreviation explanation.

It seems that indeed EBV+ tumors have a better outcome – the association with lower FDG uptake therefore seems very probable. I would suggest adding this to the results, despite the small number of EBV-.

Your data suggests that MTV is good for OS and TLG for LRC – but both have a correlation of 0.95 – don’t you think that this rather reflects coincidence within your cohort than a biological difference between the meaning of TLG and MTV?

Discussion:

How can you rule out distant disease for NPC patients if your field of view did not cover the aorta?

You suggest that a PET based treatment individualization should demonstrate some benefits – However you do not specify how you think this should be done – should patient with a TLG above 130 get higher doses, or more safety margins?

Reviewer #2: Thank you to review this interesting paper.

The study investigated the prognostic value of FDG-PET in a large patient cohort of nasopharyngeal cancers. The involved patients were from Centers of Germany (24 patients), China(57 patients), and Canada (26 patients).

The authors used established PET parameters, comprising SUV, MTV, TLG and also a novel asphericity parameter.

MTV and asphericity were significantly associated with overall survival.

There is definite need to evaluate novel FDG-PET parameters in a multicenter setting.

The imaging analysis and statistical analysis is profound and the results promising.

The manuscript is well written and the conclusion drawn is reasonable.

I don't have concerns regarding this manuscript.

Reviewer #3: 1. The authors state that most of the data on prognostic impact of metabolic parameters from pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT in nasopharyngeal cancers comes from the endemic Chinese (Asian) population and hence they intended to study it in a multi-centre non-Asian cohort from Europe and America. Unfortunately over half the patients (n=57) in this study cohort are from China itself which defeats the purpose completely. It is recommended that this analysis be repeated after removing the Chinese patient cohort.

2. The authors acknowledge that two previous systematic reviews and meta-analysis have established the prognostic importance of SUXmax, MTV, and TLG in nasopharynx, but go on to state that the Canadian and Chinese cohort that has been included in the present analysis were not part of those reviews. Both the Canadian (ref 13, 2012) and Chinese (ref 14, 2013) studies were published well before the meta-analysis (2017), so it is indeed surprising that neither of the two meta-analysis included those data.

3. The authors have used multi-variate Cox regression modelling for identifying prognostic factors for LRC, DMFS, EFS, and OS. However, many of the metabolic PET parameters display collinearity (SUVmax, MTV, TLG) which complicates such analysis. It is not entirely clear from the statistical section, whether collinearity was assessed and/or addressed in the study.

4. There is no biological explanation for finding TLG significant for LRC and MTV/ASP for OS. Even more intriguing is the fact that they did not find association of DMFS with any of the metabolic PET parameters.

5. ASP is a crude measure of tumor heterogeneity which can be measured in a more refined manner using modern radiomics approach (several open source software programs allows more refined assessment and analysis of tumor heterogeneity).

6. The authors have reported the follow-up of only surviving patients, they should report the follow-up of the entire study cohort including the inter-quartile range.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hans-Jonas Meyer

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Jun 2020

See response to reviewer file

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jul 2020

Prognostic value of baseline [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters MTV, TLG and asphericity in an international multicenter cohort of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

PONE-D-20-13504R1

Dear Dr. Qin Lin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Domenico Albano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is understandable, that Bonferoni correction was not done - since you would probably loose significance. Although this is questionable good practice - with the larger cohort and the focus now on one volume based PET Parameter as s predictor for outcome the overall strength o the manuscript is much stronger and warrants publication.

Reviewer #3: Authors have responded satisfactorily and addressed most queries and concerns in the revised submission

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

17 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-13504R1

Prognostic value of baseline [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters MTV, TLG and asphericity in an international multicenter cohort of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

Dear Dr. Lin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Domenico Albano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE