Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2746–2754 | Cite as

Intratumor Textural Heterogeneity on Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET Images Predicts Response and Survival After Chemoradiotherapy for Hypopharyngeal Cancer

  • Jungsu S. Oh
  • Bung Chul Kang
  • Jong-Lyel RohEmail author
  • Jae Seung Kim
  • Kyung-Ja Cho
  • Sang-wook Lee
  • Sung-Bae Kim
  • Seung-Ho Choi
  • Soon Yuhl Nam
  • Sang Yoon Kim
Head and Neck Oncology

Abstract

Background

Increasing evidence suggests that intratumor heterogeneity of solid tumors characterized by textural features on 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) images is associated with response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and survival. The current study aimed to determine whether a similar relationship exists in hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPSCC).

Methods

This study investigated 27 patients with HPSCC who underwent cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy followed by definitive CRT underwent pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT. Standardized uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and textural features (coarseness, busyness, complexity, and contrast) of primary tumors were measured. Patients were classified as nonresponders or responders according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. The capacity of each parameter to classify response was assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Cox-proportional hazard models were used to identify variables associated with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Of 70 patients, 58 (83 %) had complete or partial response after CRT. Responders showed lower maximum SUV (P = 0.037), lower MTV (P = 0.039), lower coarseness (P < 0.001), and busyness (P = 0.015) compared with nonresponders. Multivariate analysis showed that high coarseness (P = 0.001, hazard ratio [HR] 5.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.12–15.07) and busyness (P = 0.045; HR 2.56; 95 % CI 1.02–6.42) were independently associated with poor DFS, and that high coarseness (P = 0.013; HR 2.48; 95 % CI 1.21–5.09) was independently associated with poor OS.

Conclusion

Abnormal coarseness in baseline 18F-FDG PET scans may be useful for predicting response and survival after CRT in HPSCC patients.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Overall Survival Standardize Uptake Value Textural Feature Textural Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Grant No. 2014-0306 from the Asan Institute for Life Science and by Grant No. NRF-2012R1A1A2002039 from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea (J.-L.R.).

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2014_4284_MOESM1_ESM.tif (967 kb)
Receiver operating characteristic curves of complete or partial response after chemoradiotherapy according to maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVpeak), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and tumor coarseness on 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) images. (TIFF 967 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cirkel GA, Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG, Koudijs MJ, Willems SM, Voest EE. Tumor heterogeneity and personalized cancer medicine: are we being outnumbered? Future Oncol. 2014;10:417–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eary JF, O’Sullivan F, O’Sullivan J, Conrad EU. Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma 18F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1973–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    El Naqa I, Grigsby PW, Aptea A, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Poon I, Balogh J, MacKenzie R, et al. Automated radiation targeting in head-and-neck cancer using region-based texture analysis of PET and CT images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:618–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Mozeg D. Coregistered FDG PET/CT-based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:374–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:369–78.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M, et al. Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non–small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:19–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4357–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lonneux M, Hamoir M, Reychler H, et al. Positron emission tomography with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose improves staging and patient management in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1190–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schöder H, Fury M, Lee N, Kraus D. PET monitoring of therapy response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):74S–88S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moeller BJ, Rana V, Cannon BA, et al. Prospective risk-adjusted [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography assessment of radiation response in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2509–15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Loddge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung MK, Jeong HS, Park SG, et al. Metabolic tumor volume of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts short-term outcome to radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in pharyngeal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5861–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dibble EH, Alvarez AC, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, Subramaniam RM. 18F-FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:709–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybern. 1989;19:1264–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carvalho AL, Nishimoto IN, Califano JA, Kowalski LP. Trends in incidence and prognosis for head and neck cancer in the United States: a site-specific analysis of the SEER database. Int J Cancer. 2005;114:806–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wycliffe ND, Grover RS, Kim PD, Simental A Jr. Hypopharyngeal cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;18:243–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lefebvre JL. Candidates for larynx preservation: the next step? Oncologist. 2010;15(Suppl 3):30–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morris LG, Sikora AG, Patel SG, Hayes RB, Ganly I. Second primary cancers after an index head and neck cancer: subsite-specific trends in the era of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:739–46.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee DH, Roh JL, Baek S, et al. Second cancer incidence, risk factor, and specific mortality in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149:579–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds). AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010, p. 41–56.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST guidelines). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, Aide N. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:985–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumor PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee P, Weerasuriya DK, Lavori PW, et al. Metabolic tumor burden predicts for disease progression and death in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:328–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Texture features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;S3:610–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693–700.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Hoskin PJ, Miles KA. Non–small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology. 2013;266:326–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jungsu S. Oh
    • 1
  • Bung Chul Kang
    • 2
  • Jong-Lyel Roh
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jae Seung Kim
    • 1
  • Kyung-Ja Cho
    • 3
  • Sang-wook Lee
    • 4
  • Sung-Bae Kim
    • 5
  • Seung-Ho Choi
    • 2
  • Soon Yuhl Nam
    • 2
  • Sang Yoon Kim
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  6. 6.Biomedical Research InstituteKorea Institute of Science and TechnologySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations