Advertisement

Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 368–374 | Cite as

Associations Between [18F]FDG-PET and Complex Histopathological Parameters Including Tumor Cell Count and Expression of KI 67, EGFR, VEGF, HIF-1α, and p53 in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

  • Alexey SurovEmail author
  • Hans Jonas Meyer
  • Anne-Kathrin Höhn
  • Karsten Winter
  • Osama Sabri
  • Sandra Purz
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is one of common cancers worldwide. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG) is increasingly used for diagnosing and staging, as well as for monitoring of treatment of HNSCC. PET parameters like maximum and mean standard uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean) can predict the behavior of HNSCC. The purpose of this study was to analyze possible associations between these PET parameters and clinically relevant histopathological features in patients with HNSCC.

Procedures

Overall, 22 patients, mean age, 55.2 ± 11.0 years, with different HNSCC were acquired. Low grade (G1/2) tumors were diagnosed in 10 cases (45 %) and high grade (G3) tumor in 12 (55 %) patients. In all cases, whole body PET was performed. For this study, the following specimen stainings were performed: MIB-1 staining (KI 67 expression), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), tumor suppressor protein p53, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1α, and human papilloma virus (p16 expression). All stained specimens were digitalized and analyzed by using the ImageJ software 1.48v. Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to analyze associations between investigated parameters. P values <0.05 were taken to indicate statistical significance.

Results

P16-negative tumors showed statistically significant higher SUVmax (ρ = 0.006) and SUVmean values (ρ = 0.002) in comparison to p16-positive carcinomas. No significant differences were identified in the analyzed parameters between poorly and moderately/well-differentiated tumors. In overall sample, there were no statistically significant correlations between the [18F]FDG-PET and histopathological parameters. Also, in G1/2 tumors, no significant correlations were identified. In G3 carcinomas, cell count correlated statistical significant with SUVmax (p = 0.580, P = 0.048) and SUVmean (ρ = 0.587, P = 0.045).

Conclusion

Associations between [18F]FDG-PET parameters and different histopathological features in HNSCC depend significantly on tumor grading. In G1/2 carcinomas, there were no significant correlations between [18F]FDG-PET parameters and histopathology. In G3 lesions, SUVmax and SUVmean reflect tumor cellularity.

Key words

SUV PET HNSCC KI 67 VEGF EGFR HIF-1α p53 

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

AS drafted the manuscript and participated in the design of the study. HJM participated in the design of the study and coordination and participated in the histopathological analyses. AKH performed the histopathological analyses. KW performed the statistical analysis. OS participated in the design of the study and coordination. SP participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board (Ethic Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig) and all patients gave written informed consent. All procedures performed in the present study 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.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication is not applicable for this study.

Availability of Data and Material

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Braakhuis BJ, Leemans CR, Visser O (2014) Incidence and survival trends of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2011. Oral Oncol 50:670–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hör G (1998) Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1255–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ng SH, Yen TC, Liao CT, Chang JT, Chan SC, Ko SF, Wang HM, Wong HF (2005) 18F-FDG PET and CT/MRI in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of 124 patients with histologic correlation. J Nucl Med 46:1136–1143Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Surov A, Stumpp P, Meyer HJ, Gawlitza M, Höhn AK, Boehm A, Sabri O, Kahn T, Purz S (2016) Simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET/MRI: associations between diffusion, glucose metabolism and histopathological parameters in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 58:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varoquaux A, Rager O, Poncet A, Delattre BMA, Ratib O, Becker CD, Dulguerov P, Dulguerov N, Zaidi H, Becker M (2014) Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: 18F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:462–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goel R, Moore W, Sumer B, Khan S, Sher D, Subramaniam RM (2017) Clinical practice in PET/CT for the Management of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan SC, Cheng NM, Hsieh CH, Ng SH, Lin CY, Yen TC, Hsu CL, Wan HM, Liao CT, Chang KP, Wang JJ (2017) Multiparametric imaging using 18F-FDG PET/CT heterogeneity parameters and functional MRI techniques: prognostic significance in patients with primary advanced oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy. Oncotarget 8:62606–62621Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ryu IS, Roh JL, Kim JS, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2016) Impact of 18F -FDG PET/CT staging on management and prognostic stratification in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective observational study. Eur J Cancer 63:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haerle SK, Huber GF, Hany TF, Ahmad N, Schmid DT (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 267:1635–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kendi AT, Corey A, Magliocca KR, Nickleach DC, Galt J, Switchenko JM, el-Deiry MW, Wadsworth JT, Hudgins PA, Saba NF, Schuster DM (2015) 18F-FDG-PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma, is visual analysis of PET and contrast enhanced CT better than the numbers? Eur J Radiol 84:1171–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li SJ, Guo W, Ren GX, Huang G, Chen T, Song SL (2008) Expression of Glut-1 in primary and recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, and compared with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose accumulation in positron emission tomography. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abgral R, Keromnes N, Robin P, le Roux PY, Bourhis D, Palard X, Rousset J, Valette G, Marianowski R, Salaün PY (2014) 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 41:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim SY, Roh JL, Kim JS, Ryu CH, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY (2008) Utility of FDG PET in patients with squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitagawa Y, Sano K, Nishizawa S, Nakamura M, Ogasawara T, Sadato N, Yonekura Y (2003) FDG-PET for prediction of tumour aggressiveness and response to intra-arterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wong KH, Panek R, Welsh L, Mcquaid D, Dunlop A, Riddell A, Murray I, du Y, Chua S, Koh DM, Bhide S, Nutting C, Oyen WJG, Harrington K, Newbold KL (2016) The predictive value of early assessment after 1 cycle of induction chemotherapy with 18F-FDG PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI for response to radical chemoradiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med 57:1843–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rasmussen GB, Vogelius IR, Rasmussen JH, Schumaker L, Ioffe O, Cullen K, Fischer BM, Therkildsen MH, Specht L, Bentzen SM (2015) Immunohistochemical biomarkers and FDG uptake on PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Oncol 54:1408–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Troy JD, Weissfeld JL, Youk AO, Thomas S, Wang L, Grandis JR (2013) Expression of EGFR, VEGF, and NOTCH1 suggest differences in tumor angiogenesis in HPV-positive and HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol 7:344–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grönroos TJ, Lehtiö K, Söderström KO, Kronqvist P, Laine J, Eskola O, Viljanen T, Grénman R, Solin O, Minn H (2014) Hypoxia, blood flow and metabolism in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck: correlations between multiple immunohistochemical parameters and PET. BMC Cancer 14:876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao K, Yang SY, Zhou SH et al (2014) Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in laryngeal carcinoma is associated with the expression of glucose transporter 1 and hypoxia inducible factor 1α and the phosphoinositide 3 kinase/protein kinase B pathway. Oncol Lett 7:984–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Han MW, Lee HJ, Cho KJ, Kim JS, Roh JL, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY (2012) Role of FDG-PET as a biological marker for predicting the hypoxic status of tongue cancer. Head Neck 34:1395–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Surov A, Gottschling S, Mawrin C, Prell J, Spielmann RP, Wienke A, Fiedler E (2015) Diffusion weighted imaging in meningioma: prediction of tumor grade and association with histopathological parameters. Transl Oncol 8:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Surov A, Caysa H, Wienke A, Spielmann RP, Fiedler E (2015) Correlation between different ADC fractions, cell count, Ki-67, total nucleic areas and average nucleic areas in meningothelial meningiomas. Anticancer Res 35:6841–6846Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doll CM, Moughan J, Klimowicz A, Ho CK, Kornaga EN, Lees-Miller SP, Ajani JA, Crane CH, Kachnic LA, Okawara GS, Berk LB, Roof KS, Becker MJ, Grisell DL, Ellis RJ, Sperduto PW, Marsa GW, Guha C, Magliocco AM (2017) Significance of co-expression of epidermal growth factor receptor and Ki67 on clinical outcome in patients with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy: an analysis of NRG oncology RTOG 9811. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 97:554–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Almangush A, Heikkinen I, Mäkitie AA, Coletta RD, Läärä E, Leivo I, Salo T (2017) Prognostic biomarkers for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 117:856–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gioacchini FM, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Magliulo G, Rubini C, Presutti L, Re M (2015) The clinical relevance of Ki-67 expression in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:1569–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oliveira LR, Ribeiro-Silva A (2011) Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical biomarkers in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bossi P, Resteghini C, Paielli N, Licitra L, Pilotti S, Perrone F (2016) Prognostic and predictive value of EGFR in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget 7:74362–74379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma X, Huang J, Wu X, Li X, Zhang J, Xue L, Li P, Liu L (2014) Epidermal growth factor receptor could play a prognostic role to predict the outcome of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer Biomark 14:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tandon S, Tudur-Smith C, Riley RD, Boyd MT, Jones TM (2010) A systematic review of p53 as a prognostic factor of survival in squamous cell carcinoma of the four main anatomical subsites of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19:574–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zang J, Li C, Zhao LN, Shi M, Zhou YC, Wang JH, Li X (2013) Prognostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Head Neck 35:1507–1514Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Melkane AE, Auperin A, Saulnier P, Lacroix L, Vielh P, Casiraghi O, Msakni I, Drusch F, Temam S (2014) Human papillomavirus prevalence and prognostic implication in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. Head Neck 36:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gong L, Zhang W, Zhou J, Lu J, Xiong H, Shi X, Chen J (2013) Prognostic value of HIFs expression in head and neck cancer: a systematic review. PLoS ON 8:e75094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yokobori Y, Toyoda M, Sakakura K, Kaira K, Tsushima Y, Chikamatsu K (2015) 18F-FDG uptake on PET correlates with biological potential in early oral squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol 135:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deron P, Vangestel C, Goethals I, de Potter A, Peeters M, Vermeersch H, van de Wiele C (2011) FDG uptake in primary squamous cellcarcinoma of the head and neck. The relationship between over expression of glucose transporters and hexokinases, tumour proliferation and apoptosis. Nuklearmedizin 50:15–21Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacob R, Welkoborsky HJ, Mann WJ, Jauch M, Amedee R (2001) [Fluorine-18] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, DNA ploidy and growth fraction in squamous-cell carcinomas of the head and neck. ORL 63:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norikane T, Yamamoto Y, Maeda Y, Kudomi N, Matsunaga T, Haba R, Iwasaki A, Hoshikawa H, Nishiyama Y (2014) Correlation of (18)F-fluoromisonidazole PET findings with HIF-1α and p53 expressions in head and neck cancer: comparison with 18F-FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun 35:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leifels L, Purz S, Stumpp P, Schob S, Meyer HJ, Kahn T, Sabri O, Surov A (2017) Associations between 18F-FDG-PET, DWI, and DCE parameters in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma depend on tumor grading. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 5369625Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wadhwan V, Sharma P, Saxena C et al (2015) Grading angiogenesis in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a histomorphometric study. Indian J Dent Res 26:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anneroth G, Hansen LS (1984) A methodologic study of histologic classification and grading of malignancy in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Scand J Dent Res 92:448–468Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schouten CS, Hakim S, Boellaard R, Bloemena E, Doornaert PA, Witte BI, Braakhuis BJM, Brakenhoff RH, Leemans CR, Hoekstra OS, de Bree R (2016) Interaction of quantitative 18F-FDG-PET-CT imaging parameters and human papillomavirus status in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 38:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity Hospital of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Institute of AnatomyUniversity Hospital of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations