Prognostic significance of conventional and volumetric PET parameters with and without partial volume correction in the assessment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Abstract

BackgroundThe optimal quantification of PET in assessment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is still under development. The effect of partial volume correction (PVC) on the evaluation of survival in the HNSCC patients has not been investigated yet.Methodology Pretreatment 18 F-FDG-PET/CT scans of a selected group of 57 patients with advanced stage HNSCC were collected. Conventional (SUVmean and SUVmax) and volumetric [total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV)] PET metrics were calculated. The ROVER software (ABX GmbH, Radeberg, Germany) automatically applied PVC to the PET metrics. Cox proportional hazards regression model calculated hazard ratio (HR) for assessment of predictive parameters of progression-free survival (PFS). ResultsIn multivariate Cox regression analysis, including age, gender, race, human papillomavirus status, and stage, the only significant predictors of PFS were the volumetric PET parameters (TLG: HR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.001-1.005; P = 0.02), pvcTLG (HR, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004; P = 0.01) and MTV (HR, 1.050; 95% CI, 1.024-1.077; P < 0.01). The partial volume-corrected values were significantly higher than the noncorrected values (Wilcoxon sign test; P < 0.05). However, there was not a statistically significant difference between the nonpartial volume corrected and partial volume-corrected PET metrics for assessment of PFS. ConclusionVolumetric PET metrics were predictors of PFS in Cox regression analysis. Applying PVC could not significantly improve the accuracy of PET metrics for assessment of PFS.

Determination of diagnostic and predictive parameters for vertical mandibular invasion in patients with lower gingival squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective study

“…MTV and TLG have been reported to be useful for predicting recurrence, metastasis, and prognosis of head and neck cancer, including oral cancer, and in various other areas of cancer. [5][6][7][8][35][36][37][38] Suzuki-Shibata et al, [39] Lim et al, [40] and Kim et al, [41] reported the usefulness of metabolic volume-based parameters for predicting the efficacy of chemotherapy and molecular-targeted drug therapy. Recently, metabolic volume-based parameters have been considered for local diagnostic applications with regional specificity, such as the relationship between glucose metabolism and epithelial-mesenchymal interactions, [42] the relationship between differentiation and clinical progression.…”