| Literature DB >> 33416977 |
Bei-Bei Xiao1,2, Qiu-Yan Chen1,2, Xue-Song Sun1,2, Ji-Bin Li1,3, Dong-Hua Luo1,2, Rui Sun1,2, Da-Feng Lin1,2, Xu Zhang1,4, Wei Fan1,4, Xiao-Fei Lv1,5, Lu-Jun Han1,5, Yue-Feng Wen1,2, Li Yuan1, Shan-Shan Guo1,2, Li-Ting Liu1,2, Sai-Lan Liu1,2, Qing-Nan Tang1,2, Yu-Jing Liang1,2, Xiao-Yun Li1,2, Chao Lin1,2, Ling Guo1,2, Hai-Qiang Mai6,7, Lin-Quan Tang8,9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The value of using PET/CT for staging of stage I-II NPC remains unclear. Hence, we aimed to investigate the survival benefit of PET/CT for staging of early-stage NPC before radical therapy.Entities:
Keywords: MRI; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Neoplasm staging; PET/CT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33416977 PMCID: PMC8213607 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07478-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1Flowchart of this study
Fig. 2T- and N-staging discrepancies between PET/CT and head-and-neck MRI. (a, b) Female, 59 years old, T2N0M0 NPC. PET/CT image (left). Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI image (right). PET/CT did not detect the parapharyngeal lesion that was found by MRI (red arrow). (c, d) Male, 57 years old, T2N1M0 NPC. PET/CT image (left). Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI image (right). PET/CT distinguished positive neck lymph node (red arrow) while it was regarded as a morphological benign lymph node in MRI
The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of PET/CT and MRI in diagnosing RLNs and CLNs in 218 patients
| Site | Test | No. of patients | FN | TP | TN | FP | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95%CI (%) | % | 95%CI (%) | % | 95%CI (%) | % | 95%CI (%) | |||||||||||
| Retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis | PET/CT | 79 | 22 | 57 | 123 | 16 | 72.2 (57/79) | (62.3–82.1) | 88.5 (123/139) | (83.2–93.8) | 78.1 (57/73) | (68.6–87.6) | 84.8 (123/145) | (79.0–90.6) | ||||
| MRI | 7 | 72 | 126 | 13 | 91.1 (72/79) | (84.8–97.4) | 90.6 (126/139) | (85.7–95.5) | 84.7 (72/85) | (77.0–92.4) | 94.7 (126/133) | (90.9–98.5) | ||||||
| PET/CT vs MRI | 0.004 | 0.690 | 0.284 | 0.007 | ||||||||||||||
| Neck lymph node metastasis | PET/CT | 89 | 3 | 86 | 94 | 35 | 96.6 (86/89) | (92.8–1.0) | 72.9 (94/129) | (65.2–80.6) | 71.1 (86/121) | (63.0–79.2) | 96.9 (94/97) | (93.5–1.0) | ||||
| MRI | 21 | 68 | 124 | 5 | 76.4 (68/89) | (67.6–85.2) | 96.1 (124/129) | (92.8–99.4) | 93.2 (68/73) | (87.4–99.0) | 85.5 (124/145) | (79.8–91.2) | ||||||
| PET/CT vs MRI | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.004 | ||||||||||||||
Statistical comparisons were made using McNemar’s paired-sample test, χ2 test
Abbreviations: RLN, retropharyngeal lymph node; CLN, cervical lymph node; CWU, conventional workup; PET/CT, 18F_fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; FN, false negative; TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value
Fig. 3Detecting discrepancies of retropharyngeal and neck lymph nodes between PET/CT and head-and-neck MRI. (a, b) Male, 45 years old, T2N1M0 NPC. PET/CT image (left). Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI image (right). Metastatic retropharyngeal lymph node was detected by MRI (red arrow) but not PET/CT. (c, d) Male, 50 years old, T2N1M0 NPC. PET/CT image (left). Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI image (right). Metastatic retropharyngeal lymph node was obvious on MRI (red arrow), while it disappeared on PET/CT because of the shadow of the primary lesion
Baseline characteristics of observational dataset and PSM dataset (n = 872)
| Characteristic | Observational dataset ( | PSM dataset ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET/CT + CWU ( | CWU | PET/CT + CWU ( | CWU | |||
| Age (yr) | 0.167 | 0.334 | ||||
| Median(range) | 44.5 (35–51) | 47 (20–81) | 44.5 (35–51) | 46 (39–54) | ||
| ≤ 45 | 119 (54.6) | 387 (49.3) | 119 (54.6) | 342 (52.3) | ||
| > 45 | 99 (45.4) | 398 (50.7) | 99 (45.4) | 312 (47.7) | ||
| Gender | 0.083 | 0.743 | ||||
| Female | 47 (21.6) | 215 (27.4) | 47 (21.6) | 148 (22.6) | ||
| Male | 171 (78.4) | 570 (72.6) | 171 (78.4) | 506 (77.4) | ||
| T stage | 0.020 | 0.810 | ||||
| T1 | 133 (61.0) | 409 (52.1) | 133 (61.0) | 393 (60.1) | ||
| T2 | 85 (39.0) | 376 (47.9) | 85 (39.0) | 261 (39.9) | ||
| N stage | 0.992 | 0.906 | ||||
| N0 | 101 (46.3) | 364 (46.4) | 101 (46.3) | 306 (46.8) | ||
| N1 | 117 (53.7) | 421 (53.6) | 117 (53.7) | 348 (53.2) | ||
| Clinical stage | 0.175 | 1.000 | ||||
| I | 74 (33.9) | 229 (29.2) | 37 (17.6) | 125 (19.8) | ||
| II | 144 (66.1) | 556 (70.8) | 173 (82.4) | 505 (80.2) | ||
| EBV DNA | 0.012 | 0.139 | ||||
| < 4000 | 168 (77.1) | 662 (84.3) | 168 (77.1) | 534 (81.7) | ||
| ≥ 4000 | 50 (22.9) | 123 (15.7) | 50 (22.9) | 120 (11.3) | ||
| Smoking | 0.722 | 0.445 | ||||
| No | 156 (71.6) | 552 (70.3) | 156 (71.6) | 450 (68.8) | ||
| Yes | 62 (28.4) | 233 (29.7) | 62 (28.4) | 204 (31.2) | ||
| Treatment | 0.568 | 0.334 | ||||
| RT | 90(55.5) | 336 (42.8) | 90 (41.3) | 288 (44.0) | ||
| CCRT | 78 (45.5) | 300 (38.2) | 78 (35.8) | 251 (38.4) | ||
| ICT + RT | 19 (8.7) | 63 (8.0) | 19 (8.7) | 49 (7.5) | ||
| ICT + CCRT | 31 (14.2) | 86 (11.0) | 31 (14.2) | 66 (10.1) | ||
p value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference
Abbreviations: yr, year; EBV, Epstein–Barr virus; RT, radiotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; ICT, induction chemotherapy
Fig. 4Kaplan–Meier survival curves for 872 stage I–II NPC patients stratified by the implementation of PET/CT: (a) overall survival, (b) progression-free survival, (c) distant metastasis-free survival
Fig. 5Kaplan–Meier survival curves for 872 stage I–II NPC patients stratified by the implementation of PET/CT: (a) local relapse-free survival, (b) regional relapse-free survival
Multivariable Cox models for PSM dataset (n = 872)
| PFS | OS | LRRFS | DMFS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | HR | HR | HR | |||||
| Age | NS | 0.004 | NS | NS | ||||
| ≤ 45 | Reference | |||||||
| > 45 | 3.16(1.44–6.92) | |||||||
| N stage | < 0.001 | 0.002 | < 0.001 | NS | ||||
| N0 | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| N1 | 2.44(1.48–4.00) | 4.14(1.67–10.16) | 3.50(1.73–7.07) | |||||
| EBV DNA | 0.042 | NS | < 0.001 | |||||
| < 4000 | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| ≥ 4000 | 1.74(1.01–2.97) | 3.55(1.84–6.85) | ||||||
| PET/CT obtained | 0.262 | 0.196 | 0.526 | 0.182 | ||||
| Yes | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| No | 0.72(0.40–1.28) | 0.56(0.23–1.35) | 0.79(0.38–1.64) | 0.49(0.17–1.40) | ||||
p value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference
Abbreviations: PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; LRRFS, locoregional relapse-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival