Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T02:09:23.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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*
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
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.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (IPET-CT) treatment planning (TP) of locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) has gained acceptance because of its improved tumour coverage and increased sparing of normal tissues from radiation. With this innovative co-registration as a single image, the complementary strengths of functional (PET) and anatomic (CT) imaging are utilised. Although the impact of such radioimaging has recently been translated into a measurable improvement in patient survival, Reference Rothschild, Studer and Seifert1 our attention was drawn to three important questions: first, given that PET-CT is an imaging tool and not a form of treatment, how was the favourable result achieved? Second, because the impact on clinical outcome cannot be shown from PET-CT per se, what clinical factors bear prognosis predictive potential? Third, of these factors, which can be identified on PET-CT? The scarcity of information prompted this review of cases and the literature. The study had two objectives: first, to assess patient outcomes relative to PET-CT determined gross tumour volumes (GTVs) and tumour responses (TRs) in an attempt to find support for our TP scheme of image fusion, and second, to compare our findings to previously published subject data.

Methods

This clinical outcome study (no. 1146) was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and a retrospective review of medical records from 2010 to 2016 was performed. Only patients diagnosed with LAHNC who underwent PET-CT for TP of the disease condition completed radiochemotherapy and had follow-up information after treatment were included in this service audit. Twenty-nine consecutive individuals (24 men and 5 women with a median age of 53 years, range 33–63 years) were identified as the study participants. TP was performed with gross target volume (GTV) outlined under the guidance of PET-CT imaging (Figure 1). The bases for regional nodes tumour positivity on CT and malignant tumours on PET were according to those mentioned in our previous report. Reference Ampil, Previgliano, Porter, Richards and Takalkar2 GTVs were classified as small (≤36 cm3; 17 patients) or large (>36 cm3; 12 patients). Concurrent radiochemotherapy protocol consisted of three cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m2 given on day 1 and day 15) and 5-fluorouracil (750 mg/m2 a day administered as continuous 96-hour intravenous infusion), and conventional fractionated megavoltage intensity-modulated radiotherapy administered 70 Gy for the gross primary tumour, 64–68 Gy for clinically involved lymph nodes, and 50 Gy for subclinical disease. The chosen endpoints of the investigation were tumour response (TR), failure patterns and crude survival rate (CSR). Survival was measured from the time of diagnosis of head and neck cancer to death or last contact.

Figure 1. Depiction of PET-CT fusion radiotherapy planning: (a) CT image with outlined regional lymph node metastasis; (b) PET image with detected malignant disease; (c) PET-CT findings co-registered as a single image.

Results

Table 1 shows that many individuals were male patients (24/29; 83%) who had advanced stage (25/29; 86%) oropharyngeal cancers (18/29; 62%) and were free of other comorbid illnesses (18/29; 62%). Management of the disease was mainly by radiochemotherapy (28/29; 97%) which was concurrently (24/28; 86%) administered. The interval from consultation to the onset of irradiation was not unduly prolonged in the majority (20/29; 69%) of the cases. The overall proportions of complete TR, 3-year CSR and failure (all types included) rate were (20/25) 80%, (12/29) 41% and (16/29) 55%, respectively. In many (11/16; 69%) of the people who experienced any type of failure, the course of irradiation was prolonged, and the interval from consultation to radiotherapy initiation was also extended in a few (5/16; 31%) subjects.

Table 1. Demographic data

Notes: Number in parenthesis represents the number of patients.

OPX, Oropharynx; Non-OPX, non-oropharynx; X+C, radiochemotherapy; XRT alone, radiotherapy alone.

a Two patients with dual head and neck cancer or head and neck cancer with stage I lung cancer.

b Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lung cancer.

c Concurrent radiochemotherapy (24 patients); sequential radiochemotherapy (4 patients); one patient underwent definitive surgery (for oral tongue cancer and synchronous second cancer in the maxilla) with adjuvant radiochemotherapy.

Regarding patients with smaller and larger GTVs, the rates of complete TR were (12/17) 71% versus (8/12) 67%, respectively (p > 0.80); the corresponding 3-year survival rates were (8/17) 47% versus (4/12) 33%, p > 0.30), and locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates were (6/17) 35% versus (5/12) 42%, p > 0.70). Of the 25 patients evaluable for TR following the non-operative combined therapy, the noted proportions of total resolution and non-disappearance of the neoplasm were (20/25) 80% and (5/25) 20%, respectively; the corresponding 3-year CSRs were (11/20) 55% versus (0/5) 0%, p > 0.05, and LRR rates were (3/20) 15% versus (4/5) 80%, p < 0.02).

Fourteen people were alive at last follow-up, which ranged from 24 to 90 months (median 62.5 months). The other 15 patients were deceased, and the median survival was 15 months (range 4 to 37 months). Treatment-associated acute toxicity (grade 3 mucositis, neutropenia) and late complication (tracheocutaneous fistula, oesophageal stricture, trismus, lung abscess or haemorrhagic pancreatitis) rates were 14% (4/29) and 24% (7/29), respectively. Several clinicopathologic variables (i.e., tumour site/volume/relapse/response, presence or absence of comorbidity, duration of the radiotherapy course, radiotherapy consultation to onset of treatment interval) were tested on univariate analysis for their possible prognostic relevance; from this, the significant (p < 0.001) predictor of an adverse prognosis was the occurrence of tumour relapse.

Discussion

Accepting that there will be differences in patient characteristics between our study participants and those in published investigations, we found that, although the findings did not reach statistical significance, there was a positive relationship of smaller tumour volumes and complete resolutions of cancer to better prognosis (observations akin to the published treatment effects shown in Table 2 Reference Abgral, Keromnes and Robin3Reference Xie, Yue, Zhao, Sun, Kong, Fu and Yu7 ). The shortcoming associated with these reports (the present account included), warranting cautious interpretation of the described observations, is that the results were mostly from studies retrospective in design. While we appreciate such reported information, the observed proportions of treatment failure (55%) and prognosis (41%) in our study remain a concern. We think that the conceivable explanations for these unfavourable results might reside in the prolongation of the radiotherapy course and delay in treatment initiation, which occurred in some of our study participants: these hypotheses appear in accord with the findings of other authors. Reference Morse, Judson and Husain8,Reference Yao, Jin and Wang9

Table 2. Contribution to outcome of treatment planning integrated PET-CT for locally advanced head and neck cancer: literature review

Note: MTV, metabolic tumour volume; CMR, complete metabolic response/resolution; EFS, event-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; CS, crude survival; OS, overall survival; MS, median survival.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we focused on the contribution of the application of TP IPET-CT in LAHNC to patient outcome but failed to definitively show the gain. Nevertheless, its precise value deserves further clarification. We call for more study with larger patient numbers because limited health care resources make it imperative to constantly review the worth of costly delivery systems in order to justify their continued utilisation.

Acknowledgements

None.

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: 659667.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: 986995.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: 14111416.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: 22782283.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: 883889.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: 122130.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
Figure 0

Figure 1. Depiction of PET-CT fusion radiotherapy planning: (a) CT image with outlined regional lymph node metastasis; (b) PET image with detected malignant disease; (c) PET-CT findings co-registered as a single image.

Figure 1

Table 1. Demographic data

Figure 2

Table 2. Contribution to outcome of treatment planning integrated PET-CT for locally advanced head and neck cancer: literature review