| Literature DB >> 35695940 |
Frederik Soffers1, Nils Helsen2,3, Tim Van den Wyngaert2,4, Laurens Carp2,3, Otto S Hoekstra5, Laurence Goethals6, Michel Martens7, Kristof Deben8, Karoline Spaepen9, Remco De Bree4,10, Frank De Geeter11, G J C Zwezerijnen5, Carl Van Laer12, Alex Maes13, Olivier Lenssen14, Sigrid Stroobants2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: FDG-PET/CT has a high negative predictive value to detect residual nodal disease in patients with locally advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer after completing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). However, the positive predictive value remains suboptimal due to inflammation after radiotherapy, generating unnecessary further investigations and possibly even surgery. We report the results of a preplanned secondary end point of the ECLYPS study regarding the potential advantages of dual time point FDG-PET/CT imaging (DTPI) in this setting. Standardized dedicated head and neck FDG-PET/CT images were obtained 12 weeks after CCRT at 60 and 120 min after tracer administration. We performed a semiquantitative assessment of lymph nodes, and the retention index (RI) was explored to optimize diagnostic performance. The reference standard was histology, negative FDG-PET/CT at 1 year, or > 2 years of clinical follow-up. The time-dependent area under the receiver operator characteristics (AUROC) curves was calculated.Entities:
Keywords: Chemoradiotherapy; FDG-PET/CT; HPV; LAHNSCC; Locally advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35695940 PMCID: PMC9192834 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-022-00905-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.434
Patient and tumor characteristics
| Characteristic | |
|---|---|
| Median | 59 |
| Interquartile range | 11 |
| Gender ( | |
| Male | 79 (77.5) |
| Female | 23 (22.5) |
| 0 | 83 (81.4) |
| 1 | 19 (18.6) |
| Oral cavity | 8 (7.8) |
| Nasopharynx | 6 (5.9) |
| Oropharynx | 54 (52.9) |
| Hypopharynx | 9 (8.8) |
| Larynx | 17 (16.7) |
| Occult primary | 7 (6.9) |
| Other | 1 (0.8) |
| Negative | 21 (38.9) |
| Positive | 32 (59.3) |
| NA | 1 (1.8) |
| Well-differentiated | 9 (8.8) |
| Moderately differentiated | 26 (25.5) |
| Poorly differentiated | 35 (34.3) |
| Undifferentiated | 3 (2.9) |
| Not assessed | 29 (28.4) |
| Yes | 37 (36.3) |
| No | 65 (63.7) |
| Cisplatin or carboplatin | 86 (84.3) |
| Cetuximab w/o Gemcitabine | 16 (15.7) |
| Tx | 6 (5.9) |
| T1 or T2 | 56 (54.9) |
| T3 or T4 | 40 (39.2) |
| N2a or N2b | 64 (62.7) |
| N2c | 33 (32.4) |
| N3 | 5 (4.9) |
HPV human papillomavirus; N number of subjects
Median (IQR) SUV70 measurements
| All patients ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benign ( | Malignant ( | ||||
| SUV1 | 1.8 (1.5–2.2; 0.6) | 2.6 (1.9–4.7; 2.8) | |||
| SUV2 | 1.7 (1.4–2.2; 0.8) | 2.7 (1.6–5.9; 4.3) | 0.28 | ||
| RI | − 2.6 (− 16.7–4.5; 21.2) | 12.3 (− 11.6–25.6; 37.2) | |||
Bold was used to indicate statistical significant P values
P1 Mann–Whitney U test comparing SUV values of malignant and benign nodes. P2 and P3 Wilcoxon signed ranks test comparing SUV2 versus SUV1 of benign (P2) and malignant (P3) nodes
Fig. 1Boxplot of SUV70 measurements and RI of the whole study population and of visually equivocal patients. Top panel: boxplot of SUV70 measurements A and RI B of the whole study population (n = 102). Bottom panel: boxplot of SUV70 measurements C and RI D of visually equivocal patients (n = 24). The boxes represent the interquartile range, and the horizontal line represents the median. The whiskers represent the minimal (Q1 − 1.5*IQR) and maximal (Q3 + 1.5*IQR) values. The dots and asterisk indicate outliers and extreme outliers (beyond Q1 − 3*IQR or Q3 + 3*IQR), respectively. In panels B, C, and D, an extreme outlier was excluded to improve scaling
Diagnostic performance of SUV70 measurements regarding nodal recurrence within 12 months after CCRT
| AUROC (95% CI) | TN | FN | TP | FP | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUV1 (≥ 2.2) | 0.74 (0.59–0.88) | 70 | 5 | 10 | 17 | 66.7% (38.4–88.2%) | 80.5% (70.6–88.2%) | 37.0% (25.2–50.7%) | 93.3% (87.2–96.7%) | |
| SUV2 (≥ 2.2) | 0.76 (0.62–0.90) | 69 | 4 | 11 | 18 | 73.3% (44.9–92.2%) | 79.3% (69.3–87.3%) | 37.9% (26.8–50.5%) | 94.4% (87.8–97.5%) | 0.58 |
| SUV1 + RI (≥ 3%) | 0.75 (0.60–0.91) | 79 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 60.0% (32.3–83.7%) | 90.8% (82.7–96.0%) | 52.9% (34.1–71.0%) | 92.9% (87.6–96.1%) | 0.62 |
| SUV1 (≥ 2.2) | 0.67 (0.39–0.89) | 9 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 83.3% (35.9–99.6%) | 50.0% (26.0–74.0%) | 22.3% (13.8–34.0%) | 94.6% (73.3–99.1%) | |
| SUV2 (≥ 2.2) | 0.78 (0.56–0.94) | 10 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 100% (54.1–100%) | 55.6% (30.8–78.5%) | 27.9% (18.8–39.4%) | 100%(65.5–100%) | 0.29 |
| SUV1 + RI (≥ 3%) | 0.72 (0.47–0.97) | 14 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 66.7% (22.3–95.7%) | 77.8% (52.4–96.6%) | 34.1% (15.5–59.2%) | 93.1% (81.0–97.7%) | 0.58 |
| SUV1 (≥ 2.2) | 0.82 (0.60–1) | 12 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 83.3% (35.9–99.6%) | 80.0% (51.9–95.7%) | 41.8% (19.7–67.8%) | 96.5% (82.1–99.4%) | |
| SUV2 (≥ 2.2) | 0.88 (0.69–1) | 14 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 83.3% (35.9–99.6%) | 93.3% (68.1–99.8%) | 68.3% (23.9–93.7%) | 97.0% (84.4–99.5%) | 0.14 |
| SUV1 + RI (≥ 3%) | 0.88 (0.69–1) | 14 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 83.3% (35.9–99.6%) | 93.3% (68.1–99.8%) | 68.3% (23.9–93.7%) | 97.0% (84.4–99.5%) | 0.14 |
| SUV1 (≥ 2.2) | 0.56 (0.20–0.93) | 23 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 33.3% (0.8–90.6%) | 79.3% (60.3–92.0%) | 21.7% (4.6–61.6%) | 87.4% (75.2–94.0%) | |
| SUV2 (≥ 2.2) | 0.75 (0.42–1) | 24 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 66.7% (9.4–99.2%) | 82.8% (64.2–94.2%) | 40.0% (17.7–67.3%) | 93.5% (74.3–98.6%) | 0.29 |
| SUV1 + RI (≥ 3%) | 0.47 (0.14–0.80) | 27 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0.0% (0.0–70.8%) | 93.1% (77.2–99.2%) | 0.0%(0.0–80.2%) | 84.4% (83.0–85.6%) | 0.57 |
P comparison of AUROC values versus the SUV1 metric
Median (IQR) SUV70 measurements in OPSCC stratified by HPV status
| HPV-negative OPSCC ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benign ( | Malignant ( | ||||
| SUV1 | 1.7 (1.3–2.1; 0.8) | 4.1 (2.2–4.7; 2.5) | |||
| SUV2 | 1.5 (1.2–1.8; 0.6) | 5.2 (2.2–6.0; 3.8) | 0.07 | ||
| RI | − 14.1 (− 18.9–0.0; 18.9) | 20.0 (− 0.4–31.8; 32.2) | |||
Bold was used to indicate statistical significant P values
P1: Mann–Whitney U test comparing benign versus malignant nodes. P2, P3: Wilcoxon signed ranks test comparing SUV2 versus SUV1 in benign (P2) and malignant (P3) nodes
aIQR could not be calculated
Fig. 2Boxplot of SUV70 measurements and RI in HPV-negative and HPV-associated OPSCC. Top panel: Boxplot of SUV70 measurements A and RI B in HPV-negative OPSCC. Bottom panel: Boxplots of SUV70 measurements C and RI D of HPV-associated OPSCC. The boxes represent the interquartile range, and the horizontal line represents the median. The whiskers represent the minimal (Q1 − 1.5*IQR) and maximal (Q3 + 1.5*IQR) values. The dots represent outliers. In panel D, two extreme outliers were excluded to improve scaling
Fig. 3PET images of a patient with T2N2cM0 OPSCC. Early axial and coronal A, B and delayed C, D PET images of a patient with T2N2cM0 OPSCC. A suprasternal lymph node with an equivocal visual score and a SUV under the threshold (SUV1 = 2.1) was identified on the early head and neck PET acquisition 60 min after FDG administration (black arrow; A, B). On the delayed PET acquisition, this lymph node remained visually equivocal (black arrow; C, D). However, the SUV increased above the threshold (SUV2 = 2.4; RI = 12.7%). Recurrence was histologically proven by neck dissection