European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 275, Issue 5, pp 1301–1307 | Cite as

Arterial spin labeling perfusion-weighted MR imaging: correlation of tumor blood flow with pathological degree of tumor differentiation, clinical stage and nodal metastasis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Head and Neck
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The prognostic parameters of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) include the pathological degree of tumor differentiation, clinical staging, and presence of metastatic cervical lymph nodes. To correlate tumor blood flow (TBF) acquired from arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion-weighted MR imaging with pathological degree of tumor differentiation, clinical stage, and nodal metastasis of HNSCC.

Materials and methods

Retrospective analysis of 43 patients (31 male, 12 female with a mean age of 65 years) with HNSCC that underwent ASL of head and neck and TBF of HNSCC was calculated. Tumor staging and metastatic lymph nodes were determined. The stages of HNSCC were stage 1 (n = 7), stage II (n = 12), stage III (n = 11) and stage IV (n = 13). Metastatic cervical lymph nodes were seen in 24 patients. The degree of tumor differentiation was determined through pathological examination.

Results

The mean TBF of poorly and undifferentiated HNSCC (157.4 ± 6.7 mL/100 g/min) was significantly different (P = 0.001) than that of well-to-moderately differentiated (142.5 ± 5.7 mL/100 g/min) HNSCC. The cut-off TBF used to differentiate well-moderately differentiated from poorly and undifferentiated HNSCC was 152 mL/100 g/min with an area under the curve of 0.658 and accuracy of 88.4%. The mean TBF of stages I, II (146.10 ± 9.1 mL/100 g/min) was significantly different (P = 0.014) than that of stages III, IV (153.33 ± 9.3 mL/100 g/min) HNSCC. The cut-off TBF used to differentiate stages I, II from stages III and IV was 148 mL/100 g/min with an area under the curve of 0.701 and accuracy of 69.8%. The TBF was higher in patients with metastatic cervical lymph nodes. The cut-off TBF suspect metastatic node was 147 mL/100 g/min with an area under the curve of 0.671 and accuracy of 67.4%.

Conclusion

TBF is a non-invasive imaging parameter that well correlated with pathological degree of tumor differentiation, clinical stage of tumor and nodal metastasis of HNSCC.

Keywords

Arterial spin labeling Perfusion MR imaging Head and neck Carcinoma Prognosis 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area under the curve

ASL

Arterial spin labeling

FOV

Field of view

HNSCC

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

pCASL

Pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

TBF

Tumor blood flow

TR/TE

Repetition time/echo time

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent

Informed consent waived because this is a retrospective study.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval

IRB approval was obtained.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel Razek A (2016) Neoplastic pathology of the neck, chapter 17. In Luca S (ed) Image principles, neck, and the brain, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 425–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yousem D, Gad K, Tufano R (2006) Resectability issues with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27:2024–2036PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Srinivasan A, Mohan S, Mukherji S (2012) Biologic imaging of head and neck cancer: the present and the future. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:586–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dahiya K, Dhankhar R (2016) Updated overview of current biomarkers in head and neck carcinoma. World J Methodol 6:77–86CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Han L, Tang MM, Xu X et al (2016) LTBP2 is a prognostic marker in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget 7:45052–45059PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parsons JT, Greene BD (2016) Induction chemotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 58:e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Razek AA, Nada N (2016) Correlation of choline/creatine and apparent diffusion coefficient values with the prognostic parameters of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. NMR Biomed 29:483–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdel Razek AA, Poptani H (2013) MR spectroscopy of head and neck cancer. Eur J Radiol 82:982–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abdel Razek AA, Elkhamary S, Al-Mesfer S et al (2012) Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient at 3 T with prognostic parameters of retinoblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:944–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Razek AA (2010) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of head and neck. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:808–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abdel Razek A, Kamal E (2013) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters. Radiol Med 118:534–539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lai V, Li X, Lee VH et al (2014) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of diffusion and perfusion characteristics between different tumour stages using intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Eur Radiol 24:176–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Razek AAKA. (2018) Assessment of masses of the external ear with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Otol Neurotol 39:227–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    kui T, Kitamoto E, Kami Y et al (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of oral squamous cell carcinoma: a preliminary study of the correlations between quantitative parameters and the clinical stage. Br J Radiol 88:20140814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zheng D, Chen Y, Chen Y et al (2014) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a preliminary study of the correlations between quantitative parameters and clinical stage. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:940–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu XQ, Ma G, Wang YJ et al (2017) Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: correlation between quantitative parameters and clinical stage. Oncotarget 8:47230–47238PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Razek AA, Elsorogy LG, Soliman NY et al (2011) Dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging in distinguishing malignant from benign head and neck tumors: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 77:73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Razek AA, Tawfik AM, Elsorogy LG et al (2014) Perfusion CT of head and neck cancer. Eur J Radiol 83:537–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dequanter D, Shahla M, Aubert C et al (2015) Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Onco Targets Ther 8:2279–2283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amukotuwa SA, Yu C, Zaharchuk G (2016) 3D Pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling in routine clinical practice: a review of clinically significant artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:11–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wong EC (2014) An introduction to ASL labeling techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grade M, Hernandez Tamames JA, Pizzini FB et al (2015) A neuroradiologist’s guide to arterial spin labeling MRI in clinical practice. Neuroradiology 57:1181–1202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Razek AAKA., El-Serougy L, Abdelsalam M et al (2018) Differentiation of residual/recurrent gliomas from postradiation necrosis with arterial spin labeling and diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging-derived metrics. Neuroradiology 60:169–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Telischak NA, Detre JA, Zaharchuk G (2015) Arterial spin labeling MRI: clinical applications in the brain. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:1165–1180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fujima N, Kudo K, Tsukahara A et al (2015) Measurement of tumor blood flow in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma by pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:983–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fujima N, Nakamaru Y, Sakashita T et al (2015) Differentiation of squamous cell carcinoma and inverted papilloma using non-invasive MR perfusion imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20150074CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fujima N, Kameda H, Tsukahara A et al (2015) Diagnostic value of tumor blood flow and its histogram analysis obtained with pCASL to differentiate sinonasal malignant lymphoma from squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 84:2187–2193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fujima N, Yoshida D, Sakashita T et al (2016) Usefulness of pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling for the assessment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma by measuring tumor blood flow in the pretreatment and early treatment period. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:342–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmitt P, Kotas M, Tobermann A et al (2003) Quantitative tissue perfusion measurements in head and neck carcinoma patients before and during radiation therapy with a non-invasive MR imaging spin-labeling technique. Radiother Oncol 67:27–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fujima N, Kudo K, Yoshida D et al (2014) Arterial spin labeling to determine tumor viability in head and neck cancer before and after treatment. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:920–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kato H, Kanematsu M, Watanabe H et al (2015) Perfusion imaging of parotid gland tumours: usefulness of arterial spin labeling for differentiating Warthin’s tumours. Eur Radiol 25:3247–3254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boxberg M, Jesinghaus M, Dorfner C et al (2017) Tumour budding activity and cell nest size determine patient outcome in oral squamous cell carcinoma: proposal for an adjusted grading system. Histopathology 70:1125–1137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abdel Razek A, Soliman N, Elkhammary S et al (2006) Role of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cervical lymphadenopathy. Eur Radiol 16:1468–1477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jansen JF, Carlson DL, Lu Y et al (2012) Correlation of a prior DCE-MRI and (1)H-MRS data with molecular markers in neck nodal metastases: initial analysis. Oral Oncol 48:717–722CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abdel Razek AA, Gaballa G (2011) Role of perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in cervical lymphadenopathy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:21–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haerle S, Huber G, Hany T et al (2010) Is there a correlation between 18F-FDG-PET standardized uptake value, T-classification, histological grading and the anatomic subsites in newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:1635–1640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abdel Razek AA (2015) Assessment of solid lesions of the temporal fossa with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:1081–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abdel Razek A, Mossad A, Ghonim M (2011) Role of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in assessing malignant versus benign skull-base lesions. Radiol Med 116:125–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Razek AA, Sieza S, Maha B (2009) Assessment of nasal and paranasal sinus masses by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Neuroradiol 36:206–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Razek A, Nada N, Ghaniem M, Elkhamary S (2012) Assessment of soft tissue tumours of the extremities with diffusion echoplanar MR imaging. Radiol Med 117:96–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kabadi SJ, Fatterpekar GM, Anzai Y, Mogen J, Hagiwara M, Patel SH (2018) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in head and neck cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 26:135–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abdel Razek AA, Samir S, Ashmalla GA (2017) Characterization of parotid tumors with dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 41:131–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyMansoura Faculty of MedicineMansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Department of PathologyMansoura Faculty of medicineMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations