Advertisement

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

, Volume 144, Issue 12, pp 2485–2493 | Cite as

Pre-treatment metabolic tumor volume predicts tumor metastasis and progression in high-grade salivary gland carcinoma

  • Turki M. Almuhaimid
  • Won Sub Lim
  • Jong-Lyel Roh
  • Jungsu S. Oh
  • Jae Seung Kim
  • Soo-Jong Kim
  • Seung-Ho Choi
  • Soon Yuhl Nam
  • Sang Yoon Kim
Original Article – Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

High-grade salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) shows a high rate of metastasis and post-treatment recurrence, resulting in poor patient survival. Therefore, we evaluated the utility of pre-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters in predicting metastasis, tumor progression, and survival of high-grade SGC patients.

Methods

This observational study included 75 patients with previously untreated high-grade SGC who underwent pre-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning and subsequent treatment. Standardized uptake values (SUV), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured on pre-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the relationship of these factors with metastasis. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to identify associations between PET parameters and both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 36 (48%) patients had neck or distant metastases at initial staging. After controlling for clinical factors, MTV (> 8.8 mL) was an independent factor for initial metastasis (adjusted odds ratio 4.80, 95% confidence interval 1.09–21.20; P = 0.039). All PET parameters of SUVmax (> 4.3), SUVmean (> 3.0), SUVpeak (3.9), MTV (> 8.8 mL), and TLG (> 31.1 g) were significant variables for PFS (all P < 0.05), while MTV and TLG were significant factors for OS. After controlling for clinicopathological factors, MTV (adjusted hazard ratio 4.36, 95% confidence interval 1.69–11.26; P = 0.002) and TLG (3.41, 1.47–7.91; P = 0.004) were significantly associated with PFS, but not OS.

Conclusions

MTV is useful among quantitative PET measurements for predicting initial metastasis and PFS in patients with high-grade SGC.

Keywords

High-grade salivary gland cancer Metastasis 18F-FDG PET/CT Metabolic tumor volume Risk factors 

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant (no. 2015R1A2A1A15054540) from Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Ministry of Science and ICT, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.L. Roh).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research board and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent from all individual participants was waved because of the retrospective nature of this study.

Supplementary material

432_2018_2760_MOESM1_ESM.tif (3.9 mb)
Supplementary Figure S1. Measurement of standardized uptake value (SUV) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). The region of interest (circled) was set to include high grade salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) with metabolic activity, and software automatically calculated the SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak and MTV. Total lesion glycolysis (TLG) was calculated as MTV × SUVmean. A 52-year old male patient (A) died of disease at 21 months after chemoradiotherapy for T4N2M1 salivary duct carcinoma, whereas 50-year old male patient (B) has been disease-free for 134 months since surgery plus radiotherapy for T2N0M0 high-grade carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma in the parotid gland. (TIF 3996 KB)
432_2018_2760_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 19 KB)

References

  1. Abgral R, Keromnes N, Robin P, Le Roux PY, Bourhis D, Palard X, Rousset J, Valette G, Marianowski R, Salaun PY (2014) Prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41(4):659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelstein DJ, Rodriguez CP (2011) What is new in the management of salivary gland cancers?. Curr Opin Oncol 23(3):249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali S, Palmer FL, Yu C, DiLorenzo M, Shah JP, Kattan MW, Patel SG, Ganly I (2014) Postoperative nomograms predictive of survival after surgical management of malignant tumors of the major salivary glands. Ann Surg Oncol 21(2):637–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, Oyen WJ, Kotzerke J, Hoekstra OS, Pruim J, Marsden PK, Tatsch K, Hoekstra CJ, Visser EP, Arends B, Verzijlbergen FJ, Zijlstra JM, Comans EF, Lammertsma AA, Paans AM, Willemsen AT, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Schaefer-Prokop C, Delbeke D, Baum RP, Chiti A, Krause BJ (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(1):181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho JK, Lim BW, Kim EH, Ko YH, Oh D, Noh JM, Ahn YC, Baek KH, Jeong HS (2016) Low-grade salivary gland cancers: treatment outcomes, extent of surgery and indications for postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 23(13):4368–4375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chong A, Ha JM, Han YH, Kong E, Choi Y, Hong KH, Park JH, Kim SH, Park JM (2017) ‘Preoperative lymph node staging by FDG PET/CT with contrast enhancement for thyroid cancer: a multicenter study and comparison with neck CT’. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 10(1):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denaro N, Merlano MC, Russi EG (2016) Follow-up in head and neck cancer: do more does it mean do better? A systematic review and our proposal based on our experience. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 9(4):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edge SB, Compton BD, Fritz CC, Greene AG, Trotti FL A (2010) Major salivary gland. In: AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York, pp 79–86Google Scholar
  9. Ettl T, Gosau M, Brockhoff G, Schwarz-Furlan S, Agaimy A, Reichert TE, Rohrmeier C, Zenk J, Iro H (2014) Predictors of cervical lymph node metastasis in salivary gland cancer. Head Neck 36(4):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eveson JW, Auclair P, Gnepp DR, El-Naggar AK (2005) Tumours of the salivary glands. In: Leon B, Eveson JW, Reichart P, Sidransky D (eds) World health organization classification of tumours. Pathology & genetics—head and neck tumours. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 209–281Google Scholar
  11. Ha SC, Oh JS, Roh JL, Moon H, Kim JS, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2017) ‘Pretreatment tumor SUVmax predicts disease-specific and overall survival in patients with head and neck soft tissue sarcoma’. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(1):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haderlein M, Scherl C, Semrau S, Lettmaier S, Uter W, Neukam FW, Iro H, Agaimy A, Fietkau R (2016) High-grade histology as predictor of early distant metastases and decreased disease-free survival in salivary gland cancer irrespective of tumor subtype. Head Neck, 38 Suppl 1:E2041–E2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong HR, Roh JL, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2015) Prognostic value of lymph node density in high-grade salivary gland cancers. J Surg Oncol 111(6):784–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hosni A, Huang SH, Goldstein D, Xu W, Chan B, Hansen A, Weinreb I, Bratman SV, Cho J, Giuliani M, Hope A, Kim J, O’Sullivan B, Waldron J, Ringash J (2016) Outcomes and prognostic factors for major salivary gland carcinoma following postoperative radiotherapy. Oral Oncol 54:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsieh CE, Ho KC, Hsieh CH, Yen TC, Liao CT, Wang HM, Lin CY (2017) Pretreatment primary tumor SUVmax on 18F-FDG PET/CT images predicts outcomes in patients with salivary gland carcinoma treated with definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Clin Nucl Med 42(9):655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ito T, Noguchi Y, Satoh S, Hayashi H, Inayama Y, Kitamura H (1998) Expression of facilitative glucose transporter isoforms in lung carcinomas: its relation to histologic type, differentiation grade, and tumor stage. Mod Pathol 11(5):437–443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeong HS, Chung MK, Son YI, Choi JY, Kim HJ, Ko YH, Baek CH (2007) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in management of high-grade salivary gland malignancies. J Nucl Med 48(8):1237–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jung JH, Lee SW, Son SH, Kim CY, Lee CH, Jeong JH, Jeong SY, Ahn BC, Lee J (2017) Clinical impact of 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography/CT on adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 39(3):447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim MJ, Kim JS, Roh JL, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2013) ‘Utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting neck metastasis in patients with salivary gland carcinomas: preoperative planning for necessity and extent of neck dissection’. Ann Surg Oncol 20(3):899–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim JW, Oh JS, Roh JL, Kim JS, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2015) Prognostic significance of standardized uptake value and metabolic tumour volume on (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42(9):1353–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim D, Kim W, Lee J, Ki Y, Lee B, Cho K, Kim S, Nam J, Lee J, Kim D (2016) Pretreatment maximum standardized uptake value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of distant metastasis in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 38(5):755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, Aide N (2013) Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(7):985–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nair VJ, MacRae R, Sirisegaram A, Pantarotto JR (2014) Pretreatment [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography maximum standardized uptake value as predictor of distant metastasis in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy: rethinking the role of positron emission tomography in personalizing treatment based on risk status. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88(2):312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nam SJ, Roh JL, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2016) Risk Factors and survival associated with distant metastasis in patients with carcinoma of the salivary gland. Ann Surg Oncol 23(13):4376–4383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pak K, Cheon GJ, Nam HY, Kim SJ, Kang KW, Chung JK, Kim EE, Lee DS (2014) Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 55(6):884–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park GC, Roh JL, Cho KJ, Jin MH, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2017a) ‘Incidence and risk factors of late recurrence in patients with salivary gland cancer’. Clin Otolaryngol 42(2):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park MJ, Oh JS, Roh JL, Kim JS, Lee JH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2017b) 18F-FDG PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT for staging and prognostic prediction in patients with salivary gland carcinomas. Clin Nucl Med 42(3):e149–e156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinkston JA, Cole P (1999) Incidence rates of salivary gland tumors: results from a population-based study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(6):834–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Razfar A, Heron DE, Branstetter BFt, Seethala RR, Ferris RL (2010) Positron emission tomography-computed tomography adds to the management of salivary gland malignancies. Laryngoscope 120(4):734–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roh JL, Ryu CH, Choi SH, Kim JS, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Nam SY, Kim SY (2007) Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET for patients with salivary gland malignancies. J Nucl Med 48(2):240–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryu IS, Kim JS, Roh JL, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2013) Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT in salivary gland carcinomas. J Nucl Med 54(7):1032–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schoenfeld JD, Sher DJ, Norris CM Jr, Haddad RI, Posner MR, Balboni TA, Tishler RB (2012) Salivary gland tumors treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(1):308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz DL, Ford E, Rajendran J, Yueh B, Coltrera MD, Virgin J, Anzai Y, Haynor D, Lewellyn B, Mattes D, Meyer J, Phillips M, Leblanc M, Kinahan P, Krohn K, Eary J, Laramore GE (2005) FDG-PET/CT imaging for preradiotherapy staging of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61(1):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seethala RR, Stenman G (2017) Tumours of the salivary gland. In: El-Naggar AK, Chan JKC, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ (eds) World Health Organization (WHO) classification of head and neck tumours, 4th edn. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  35. Suh JD, Cho JH (2016) Trends in head and neck cancer in South Korea Between 1999 and 2012. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 9(3):263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryKing Fahad Specialist HospitalDammamSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations