Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:28:37.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrated PET-CT treatment planning of locally advanced head and neck cancer: a review of imaging features and the contribution to clinical outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2021

Federico Ampil Open the ORCID record for Federico Ampil [Opens in a new window]  and
Michelle Norton
Federico Ampil*
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA
Michelle Norton
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Federico Ampil, Division of Radiation Oncology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA71103, USA. E-mail: fampil@sh.lsuh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

Little is known about how integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (IPET-CT), both imaging tools and not methods of treatment, contributes to head and neck cancer patients’ outcomes. We analysed the clinical PET-CT findings and their correlation to the effects of applied contemporary disease management.

Methodology:

A retrospective analysis of 29 individuals who underwent treatment planning fusion of PET-CT for radiochemotherapy of locally advanced head and neck cancer between 2010 and 2016 was undertaken. Gross tumour volumes were categorised as small (≤36 cm3) or large (>36 cm3), and tumour responses to therapy were classified as complete or incomplete.

Results:

The overall rates of complete tumour response (CTR), 3-year crude survival and failure (all types included) were 80%, 41% and 55%, respectively. Comparative analysis of tumour volume subsets revealed no significant differences in the rates of CTR (p > 0.80), 3-year survival (p > 0.30) and locoregional recurrence (p > 0.70). CTR was associated with improved prognosis (p > 0.05) and fewer tumour relapses (p < 0.02).

Conclusion:

Our findings, although not truly conclusive, appear in line with those in the literature. Smaller tumour volumes and CTRs shown on integrated PET-CT are likely to play important roles in the promotion of better prognosis, but further study with larger patient numbers and more data are needed.

Keywords

head and neck cancerPET-CT imagingradiochemotherapy
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 553 - 555
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rothschild, S, Studer, G, Seifert, B et al. PET/CT staging followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improves treatment outcome of locally advanced pharyngeal carcinoma: a matched-pair comparison. Radiat Oncol 2007; 2: 22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ampil, F, Previgliano, C, Porter, C, Richards, T, Takalkar, A. Metachronous mediastinal and lung metastases from head and neck cancer: a case series, literature review and considerations for treatment. Oral Oncol 2020; 102: 104518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abgral, R, Keromnes, N, Robin, P et al. 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 2014; 41: 659–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, CA, Corry, J, Milner, AD, Hogg, A, Hicks, RJ, Rischin, D, Peters, LJ. Clinical impact of, and prognostic stratification by, F-18 FDG PET/CT in head and neck mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2007; 29: 986–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, C, Ciarallo, A, Tahari, AK et al. Head and neck PET/CT: therapy response interpretation criteria (Hopkins Criteria)-interreader reliability, accuracy, and survival outcomes. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 1411–1416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Passero, VA, Branstetter, BF, Shuai, Y et al. Response assessment by combined PET-CT scan versus CT scan alone using RECIST in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 2278–2283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, P, Yue, JB, Zhao, HX, Sun, XD, Kong, L, Fu, Z, Yu, JM. Prognostic value of 18FDG PET-CT metabolic index for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2010; 136: 883–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morse, E, Judson, B, Husain, Z et al. National treatment times in oropharyngeal cancer treated with primary radiation or chemoradiation. Oral Oncol 2018; 82: 122–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yao, JJ, Jin, YN, Wang, SY et al. The detrimental effects of radiotherapy interruption on local control after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an observational, prospective analysis. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed