FDG-PET/CT improves detection of residual disease and reduces the need for examination under anaesthesia in oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with (chemo-)radiation
Early detection of residual disease (RD) after (chemo)radiation for oropharyngeal (OPC) is crucial. Surveillance of neck nodes with FDG-PET/CT has been studied extensively, whereas its value for local RD remains less clear. We aim to evaluate the diagnostic value of post-treatment FDG-PET/CT in detecting local RD and the outcome of patients with local RD.
A cohort (n = 352) of consecutively treated OPC patients at our institute between 2010 and 2017 was evaluated. Patients that underwent FDG-PET/CT at 3 months post-treatment (n = 94) were classified as having complete (CMR) or partial metabolic response (PMR). PMR was defined as visually detectable metabolic activity above the background of surrounding normal tissues. Primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy in detecting local RD.
Local RD was seen in 19/352 patients (5%), all of them were HPV negative. The FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 100% (8/8), specificity 85% (73/86), PPV 38% (8/21), NPV 100% (73/73), and accuracy 86%. Patients with local RD had significantly worse OS at 2 years, compared to those without (10 versus 88%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, local RD remained a significant predictive factor for death with a hazard ratio of 11.9 (95% CI 5.8–24.3). The number of patients that underwent PET/CT increased over time (P < 0.001), whereas the number of patients that underwent EUA declined (P = 0.072).
FDG-PET/CT has excellent performance for the detection of RD, with the sensitivity and negative predictive value approaching 100%. Due to these excellent results is examination under anaesthesia today in the vast majority of the PET-negative cases not necessary anymore.
KeywordsRadiotherapy Head and neck PET/CT Chemoradiation Recurrence Oropharynx
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
The local IRB waived informed consent for this retrospective analysis of clinical data.
- 1.Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Domenge C, Designe L (2000) Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy on head and neck cancer. Lancet 355(9208):949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, Azarnia N, Shin DM, Cohen RB, Jones CU, Sur R, Raben D, Jassem J, Ove R, Kies MS, Baselga J, Youssoufian H, Amellal N, Rowinsky EK, Ang KK (2006) Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 354(6):567–578. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa053422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.de Ridder M, Gouw ZAR, Sonke JJ, Navran A, Jasperse B, Heukelom J, Tesselaar MET, Klop WMC, van den Brekel MWM, Al-Mamgani A (2017) Recurrent oropharyngeal cancer after organ preserving treatment: pattern of failure and survival. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(3):1691–1700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4413-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Mehanna H, Wong WL, McConkey CC, Rahman JK, Robinson M, Hartley AG, Nutting C, Powell N, Al-Booz H, Robinson M, Junor E, Rizwanullah M, von Zeidler SV, Wieshmann H, Hulme C, Smith AF, Hall P, Dunn J, Group P-NTM (2016) PET-CT surveillance versus neck dissection in advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 374(15):1444–1454. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1514493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S, Agarwal JP, Ghsoh-Laskar S, Rangarajan V, Murthy V, Budrukkar A (2011) Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(11):2083–2095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1893-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bird T, Barrington S, Thavaraj S, Jeannon JP, Lyons A, Oakley R, Simo R, Lei M, Guerrero Urbano T (2016) (18)F-FDG PET/CT to assess response and guide risk-stratified follow-up after chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43(7):1239–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3290-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Katsuura T, Kitajima K, Fujiwara M, Terada T, Uwa N, Noguchi K, Doi H, Tamaki Y, Yoshida R, Tsuchitani T, Fujita M, Yamakado K (2018) Assessment of tumor response to chemoradiotherapy and predicting prognosis in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma by PERCIST. Ann Nucl Med 32(7):453–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1267-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Suenaga Y, Kitajima K, Ishihara T, Sasaki R, Otsuki N, Nibu K, Minamikawa T, Kiyota N, Sugimura K (2016) FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT as a post-treatment tool in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: comparison with FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT. Eur Radiol 26(4):1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3902-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Taghipour M, Mena E, Kruse MJ, Sheikhbahaei S, Subramaniam RM (2017) Post-treatment 18F-FDG-PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparative effectiveness study. Nucl Med Commun 38(3):250–258. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Vainshtein JM, Spector ME, Stenmark MH, Bradford CR, Wolf GT, Worden FP, Chepeha DB, McHugh JB, Carey T, Wong KK, Eisbruch A (2014) Reliability of post-chemoradiotherapy F-18-FDG PET/CT for prediction of locoregional failure in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol 50(3):234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2013.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.McDermott M, Hughes M, Rath T, Johnson JT, Heron DE, Kubicek GJ, Kim SW, Ferris RL, Duvvuri U, Ohr JP, Branstetter BF (2013) Negative predictive value of surveillance PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34(8):1632–1636. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Olteanu LAM, Duprez F, De Neve W, Berwouts D, Vercauteren T, Bauters W, Deron P, Huvenne W, Bonte K, Goethals I, Schatteman J, De Gersem W (2018) Late mucosal ulcers in dose-escalated adaptive dose-painting treatments for head-and-neck cancer. Acta Oncol 57(2):262–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2017.1364867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Greuter MJ, Schouten CS, Castelijns JA, de Graaf P, Comans EF, Hoekstra OS, de Bree R, Coupe VM (2017) Cost-effectiveness of response evaluation after chemoradiation in patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer using (18)F-FDG-PET-CT and/or diffusion-weighted MRI. BMC Cancer 17(1):256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3254-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ng SP, Johnson JM, Gunn GB, Rosenthal DI, Skinner HD, Phan J, Frank SJ, Morrison W, Sturgis EM, Mott FE, Williams MD, Fuller CD, Garden AS (2018) Significance of negative posttreatment 18-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with p16/HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.06.031 Google Scholar
- 21.Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, Weber R, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tan PF, Westra WH, Chung CH, Jordan RC, Lu C, Kim H, Axelrod R, Silverman CC, Redmond KP, Gillison ML (2010) Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 363(1):24–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0912217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Gouw ZAR, Jasperse B, Sonke JJ, Heemsbergen WD, Navran A, Hamming-Vrieze O, de Boer JP, van den Brekel MWM, Al-Mamgani A (2017) A predictive model for residual disease after (chemo)radiotherapy in oropharyngeal carcinoma: Combined radiological and clinical evaluation of tumor response. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 6:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar