CT Evaluation of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Nasopharynx

Predictive Value of Diffusion, Glucose Metabolism Parameters of PET/MR in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Chemoradiotherapy

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the predictive value of the pretreatment, metabolic, and diffusion parameters of a primary tumor assessed with PET/MR on patient clinical outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective evaluation was performed using PET/MR image data sets acquired using the single tracer injection dual imaging of 68 histologically proven head and neck cancer patients 4 weeks before receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). PET/MR was performed before the CRT and 12 weeks after the CRT for response evaluation. Image data (PET and MRI diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]) was used to specify the maximum standard uptake value, the peak lean body mass corrected, SUV_max, the metabolic tumor volume, the total lesion glycolysis (SUV_max, SUL_peak, MTV, and TLG), and the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC_mean) of the primary tumor. Based on the results of the therapeutic response evaluation, two patient subgroups were created: one with a viable tumor and another without. Metabolic and diffusion data, from the pretreatment PET/MR and the therapeutic response, were correlated using Spearman's correlation coefficient and Wilcoxon's test.

Results: After completing the CRT, a viable residual tumor was detected in 36/68 (53%) cases, and 32/68 (47%) patients showed complete remission. However, no significant correlation was found between the pretreatment parameter, ADC_mean (p = 0.88), and the therapeutic success. The PET parameters, SUV_max and SUL_peak, MTV, and TLG (p = 0.032, p = 0.01, p < 0.0001, p = 0.0004) were statistically significantly different between the two patient subgroups.

Conclusion: This study found that MRI-based (ADC_mean) data from FDG PET/MR pretreatment could not be used to predict therapeutic response although the PET parameters SUV_max, SUL_peak, MTV, and TLG proved to be more useful; thus, their inclusion in risk stratification may also be of additional value.