PET/CT Versus Standard Imaging for Prediction of Survival in Patients with Recurrent Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether staging with 18 F-FDG PET/CT better predicts survival in patients with recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) than chest x-ray (CXR) plus head and neck MRI or chest CT (CCT) plus head and neck MRI. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study based on paired data. Consecutive patients with histologically verified HNSCC recurrence were enrolled from September 2013 to March 2016. All patients underwent CXR/MRI, CCT/MRI, and PET/CT on the same day and before biopsy. All imaging studies underwent masked interpretation by separate teams of experienced nuclear physicians or radiologists. Recurrent carcinomas were categorized as localized (equivalent to primary stages I-II), locally advanced (equivalent to primary stages III-IVB), or metastatic (equivalent to primary stage IVC). Discriminative abilities for each imaging strategy with respect to cancer-specific and stage-based survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional-hazards regression with the Harrell concordance index (C-index), and net reclassification improvement. Results: In total, 110 patients (90 men and 20 women; median age, 66 y; range, 40-87 y) were included. PET/CT significantly changed the assigned tumor stage when compared with imaging strategies based on CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI (P , 0.001 for both). Kaplan-Meier analysis of PET/CT-based staging showed progressively worsened prognosis with localized, locally advanced, or metastatic disease (log-rank test, P , 0.001), whereas CXR/MRI and CCT/MRI were unable to distinguish between these groups in terms of survival (log-rank test, P 5 0.18 and P 5 0.58, respectively). Overall discriminative ability in predicting cancer-specific mortality was significantly greater for PET/CT (C-index, 0.72) than for CXR/MRI (C-index, 0.55) (P 5 0.001) and CCT/MRI (Cindex, 0.55)(P , 0.001). The addition of PET/CT to either CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI was associated with a significantly positive net reclassification improvement (P , 0.001 for both). Conclusion: Contrary to standard imaging strategies, PET/CT-based staging in recurrent HNSCC was able to significantly discriminate among the survival courses of patients with local, locally advanced, or metastatic disease and predict their respective survival probability.

Autofluorescence imaging for recurrence detection in skin cancer postoperative scars

“…Noninvasive diagnosis of cancer local recurrence remains challenging for any of diagnostic method available, including dermoscopic examination of the surgical site , magnetic resonance imaging , positron emission tomography and computed tomography . In this study we evaluated the potential of autofluorescence to reveal the diagnostic criteria of skin cancer recurrence within the scar margins.…”

Tumor Subregion Evolution-Based Imaging Features to Assess Early Response and Predict Prognosis in Oropharyngeal Cancer

“…Imaging with CT and 18 F-FDG PET is often used in staging, radiation treatment planning, and response evaluation for patients with OPSCC (6,7). Numerous studies have investigated imaging characteristics associated with treatment outcomes, with limited success (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18).…”

Artificial intelligence in tumor subregion analysis based on medical imaging: A review

“…Workflow of a general AI in tumor subregion analysis of medical images with cancers of the head and neck. 37,38 PET provides detailed functional and metabolic information, while CT reveals the precise anatomical position of the tumor. Table 1 shows a list of selected studies that used supervised learning for tumor subregion analysis in the head and neck.…”

“…CT and ‐FDG PET are often used in staging, radiation therapy treatment planning, and evaluation of treatment response in patients with cancers of the head and neck 37,38 . PET provides detailed functional and metabolic information, while CT reveals the precise anatomical position of the tumor.…”