Abstract
Our purpose was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of PET with 18F-FDG 1 mo after the completion of radiotherapy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Methods: Ninety-seven patients underwent 18F-FDG PET scans before and after radiotherapy for nondisseminated SCCHN. The first scans were obtained no more than 4 wk before the start of radiotherapy, and follow-up scans were obtained 1 mo after the completion of radiotherapy. 18F-FDG PET images were analyzed using standardized uptake values (SUVs). All patients were followed for at least 6 mo or until death. Results: The median SUVs of preradiotherapy primary sites and nodes were 6.5 (range, 2.3–23.0) and 5.6 (range, 1.2–16.8), respectively. The median SUVs of postradiotherapy primary sites and nodes were 1.8 (range, basal status value to 9.7) and 1.8 (range, basal status value to 8.6), respectively. Evaluation of the postradiotherapy status of tumors in these SCCHN patients showed the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET to be 88%, the specificity to be 95%, and the overall diagnostic accuracy to be 94.9%. Conclusion: Our results indicate that 18F-FDG PET might be a valuable imaging method for evaluating the response to radiotherapy in patients with SCCHN. One month after the completion of radiotherapy is not too early for follow-up 18F-FDG PET to be performed to evaluate the response to radiotherapy.
The use of CT and MRI scans has improved the planning of radiation treatment (1–3) and the evaluation of radiotherapy responses. These methods are limited, however, in assessing residual viable tumors treated with radiotherapy. For example, when one is evaluating the response to radiotherapy, confusion can arise because of loss of normal tissue planes and because of tissue edema, fibrosis, granulation, necrosis, and scarring after radiotherapy (4,5). These limitations can be overcome with PET, a functional imaging technique that can provide biologic information about tissue metabolism.
Although biopsy of the remaining tissue can provide an unambiguous evaluation of whether the patient has residual disease, biopsy is invasive and associated with the risks of bleeding, infection, delayed wound healing, and necrosis. In addition, differentiating between residual viable tumor cells and nonviable tumor cells is difficult because of changes in cell morphology due to radiation. A method that accurately evaluates the treatment response to definitive radiotherapy but reduces the need for invasive techniques is therefore needed. Because 18F-FDG uptake is likely to correlate with the number of viable tumor cells and their metabolic activity, 18F-FDG PET may be particularly helpful for differentiating between recurrent and residual tumors early after radiotherapy, for deciding if salvage treatment is necessary, and for detecting postradiation changes (6–13). The other method—to wait and see—is associated with the risks of disease progression and salvage treatment delay. Early discrimination is important because it can enable prompt salvage treatment when the size of the residual tumor volume has been reduced. When used to evaluate the response to radiotherapy, 18F-FDG PET is usually performed 3–4 mo after the end of radiotherapy to avoid false-positive findings (14,15). It has also been suggested that a scan obtained at the time of the first clinical follow-up examination can provide reliable and relevant information (16). We found, however, that in 22 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), 18F-FDG PET performed earlier may be able to identify more patients with residual disease who can benefit from salvage surgery (17). There are no guidelines for the optimal timing of posttreatment 18F-FDG PET in patients with head and neck cancer.
Therefore, we prospectively evaluated the clinical efficacy of 18F-FDG PET performed 1 mo after the completion of radiotherapy for determining the response to radiotherapy in patients with SCCHN.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients
Between August 2001 and September 2004, 97 SCCHN patients were diagnosed and treated with definitive radiotherapy at the Asan Medical Center, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Eligible patients included those with poorly differentiated or undifferentiated carcinomas and no distant metastases. This clinical study was approved by the institutional review board of our hospital, and all patients provided oral or written informed consent.
The staging work-up consisted of taking a medical history and performing a physical examination, panendoscopy with tumor measurements, a biopsy, a dental evaluation, a bone scan, chest radiography, a complete blood count, liver function testing, and contrast-enhanced CT or MRI of the head and neck. At the time of the second 18F-FDG PET scan, CT or MRI was not routinely performed, but all patients underwent a routine examination including fiberoptic endoscopy of the nasopharynx or larynx. CT or MRI of the nasopharynx, including the neck, was performed if the primary tumor invaded the parapharyngeal or intracranial space.
PET
All patients fasted for at least 8 h before undergoing 18F-FDG PET and, to stimulate 18F-FDG excretion from the renal calyces and subsequent voiding, drank 1 L of water just before the scan began. In each patient, including those with diabetes mellitus, the serum glucose concentration had to be under control and less than 120 mg/dL; the average blood glucose concentration before intravenous injection of 18F-FDG was 99 ± 12 mg/dL. All patients rested for at least 1 h before undergoing PET. About 555 MBq (15 mCi) of 18F-FDG, of radiochemical purity greater than 99%, were injected into a peripheral vein of the anterior upper arm. Sixty minutes later, PET studies from the skull base to the pelvis were obtained with septa (2-dimensional mode) on a full-ring scanner—88 on an ECAT Exact HR+ PET scanner (CPS/Siemens) and 9 on a Biograph Sensation PET/CT scanner (CPS/Siemens). These scanners have an axial field of view of 15.5 cm and a full width at half maximum of 4.6 mm at the center of the field of view. The PET scans were obtained at 4 and 6 min per bed position for transmission and emission scanning, respectively. PET images were reconstructed on a 128 × 128 matrix using an ordered-subsets expectation maximization algorithm for 8 subsets and 2 iterations, with a 6-mm gaussian filter. A segmented attenuation-correction algorithm was used with ordered-subsets expectation maximization. Attenuation correction was performed using 2 different methods. The ECAT Exact HR+ was used for attenuation correction of the PET images obtained on that scanner, and the CT data from the Biograph Sensation were used for attenuation correction of the PET images obtained on that scanner. The maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) (18) was measured for 1 pixel of each region of interest, and the SUV was determined using the whole-body attenuation-corrected image according to the following equation: SUV = maximum regional activity (Bq/mL)/(injected activity [Bq]/lean body weight [g]). The region of interest was defined by visual interpretation on the workstation computer. No correction was made for glucose or partial volume. All PET images were interpreted by a professor of nuclear medicine. An SUVmax reading of 3.0 was used to distinguish between malignancy and normal tissue. If the SUV was 2.5–3.5, a biopsy was performed whenever possible. If a biopsy could not be performed, the clinical outcome was determined by follow-up status.
Response Evaluation and Follow-up
Immediately after and 1 mo after the completion of radiotherapy, patient response was evaluated by physical examination and fiberoptic endoscopy. If residual disease was suspected or abnormal uptake of 18F-FDG was seen, a biopsy was performed for confirmation. All patients were followed up for at least 6 mo or until death. In this study, the period of response evaluation was 6 mo after the completion of radiotherapy. Recurrence was defined as evidence of disease after 6 mo. However, if the neck node was palpable, or if there was a residual mass in the nasopharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx as shown by fiberoptic endoscopy, we performed further studies such as CT, MRI, or neck sonography 2 mo after radiotherapy.
Study Design and Statistical Analysis
The baseline 18F-FDG PET scan of each patient was obtained no more than 4 wk before the initiation of radiotherapy. All patients also underwent whole-body 18F-FDG PET within 4–6 wk of the completion of radiotherapy, as described previously (17). CT or MRI was not routinely performed at the same time as the postradiotherapy 18F-FDG PET scan. If a residual mass was observed in the primary tumor site and the residual node was palpable, CT or MRI was performed 1 mo later with strict clinical follow-up. The cutoff SUV was 3.0, with SUVs of less than 3.0 defined as negative and SUVs of 3.0 or more defined as positive, the same value as that used in a previous study (19). However, because SUVs are semiquantitative, it is not possible to determine the specific value for reference. The results for primary sites and lymph nodes were separately evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 18F-FDG PET. If a patient had 2 or more metastatic lymph nodes, only the one with the highest SUV was measured. P values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Categorizations of continuous variables used medians as cutoff values. The distributions of continuous outcome variables were compared among subgroups, with the Mann–Whitney U test used for binary outcomes.
RESULTS
Demographic Data
Of the 97 patients, 85 were men and 12 were women, with a median age of 57 y (range 17–83 y). The patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 39 mo (median, 20 mo). Fifty patients had nasopharyngeal cancer, 16 had hypopharyngeal cancer, 16 had carcinoma of the larynx, 8 had carcinoma of the oropharynx, 4 had oral cavity cancer, and 3 had carcinoma of the paranasal sinus. After radiotherapy, 86 patients (89%) showed locoregional complete responses. Partial responses to radiotherapy were confirmed by biopsy or salvage surgery. Of the 86 patients who had locoregional complete responses, 14 had locoregional recurrent tumors and 8 had distant metastases. Of the 14 cases of locoregional failure, 7 occurred at the primary site, 5 at the regional nodes, and 2 at both sites.
Patient Characteristics at Baseline (n = 97)
18F-FDG PET Findings
Using 18F-FDG PET, we evaluated a total of 388 SUV sites before and after radiotherapy in 97 patients. Before radiotherapy, the median SUV at the primary sites was 6.5 (range, 2.3–23.0), and the median SUV at the neck nodes was 5.6 (range, 1.2–16.8). One month after the completion of radiotherapy, the median SUV at the primary sites was 1.8 (range, basal status value to 9.7), and the medium SUV at the neck nodes was 1.8 (range, basal status value to 8.6) (Table 2). Basal status is classed as a level of 18F-FDG uptake that is similar to the background 18F-FDG uptake level of normal tissue and is usually an SUV of about 1.0. This term was used because physiologic 18F-FDG uptake of normal tissue varies. At the primary sites and neck nodes, the SUVs for true- and false-positive lesions ranged from 3.1 to 9.7 at primary sites and from 3.2 to 4.4 at neck nodes. A positive PET result was defined as an SUV of at least 3. The mean SUV of true-positive lesions was significantly higher than that of false-positive lesions (3.7 ± 0.41 vs. 6.0 ± 2.02; P = 0.003, t test).
SUV of 97 Tumors Before and 1 Month After Radiotherapy
Postradiotherapy PET image analysis showed that 23 sites were positive for uptake and 171 were negative (Table 3). Of the 23 positive sites, 15 (65.2%) were true-positive, as shown by biopsy results or evidence of recurrence after at least 6 mo. Of the 171 negative sites, 2 (1.2%) were considered to be false-negative. Thus, the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET in evaluating the postradiotherapy status of these SCCHNs was 88.2% and the specificity was 95.5%. The overall diagnostic accuracy of this method was 94.9%. The lack of false-negative findings for neck nodal disease is particularly interesting, making the sensitivity of this method for neck nodes 100%. The diagnostic accuracy was 90.7% at primary sites and 99.0% at the neck nodes (P = 0.002, χ2 test). Figure 1 shows a typical example of 18F-FDG PET scans of a patient with tumors that had a complete metabolic response as shown by 18F-FDG PET but that were classed as morphologically nonresponsive on CT.
Example of complete metabolic response. CT images after radiation therapy showed residual disease (bottom right panel), but no pathologic evidence of disease was observed.
Results of 18F-FDG PET for SCCHN (n = 97)
The nonspecific inflammation resulting from radiotherapy of the primary tumor site did not reduce 18F-FDG uptake below the basal level, although there were no residual tumor cells. However, reductions of less then 50% in initial gross tumor volume were observed in 9 patients, 8 of whom were pathologically positive and 1 of whom was pathologically negative. The SUVs of the pathologically positive cases ranged from 4.1 to 9.7 (mean, 6.3), whereas the SUV of the pathologically negative patient was 1.9. These 9 patients, who were diagnosed with clinically residual disease, were found to have residual tumor tissue on biopsy or fine-needle aspiration. With the exception of 1 case, all PET-negative nodes were less than 1.5 cm as measured by neck sonography.
The 18F-FDG PET–negative and CT-positive case is presented in Figure 1. This patient was a 29-y-old man who presented with a swollen right neck node, dysphagia, and odynophagia. Panendoscopy showed a large, bulky tumor occupying the entire nasopharyngeal cavity and extending into the right lateral pharyngeal wall. The clinical stage according to the 5th edition of the staging manual (20) of the American Joint Committee on Cancer was T2b N2 M0. The residual primary tumor and neck node were observed on CT 1 mo after the completion of radiotherapy, although 18F-FDG PET showed a complete metabolic response (SUV, 1.9). Three months after radiotherapy, salvage surgery was performed to remove the residual tumor. The pathologic finding was total necrosis. The patient is in a locoregional control state at present.
DISCUSSION
Among the methods available for evaluating residual abnormalities, including fibrosis, necrosis, inflammation, and viable tumor after radiotherapy, there is no easy discriminative and objective method for measuring the response to radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. However, such a diagnostic method is needed to enable oncologists to more easily explain outcomes to patients. In clinical practice, most of the conventional follow-up diagnostic methods have often been nonspecific and unsatisfactory for detecting early recurrent cancer in asymptomatic patients (21). CT or MRI scans have been used mainly for tumor diagnosis and evaluation of treatment response, but these methods reflect only morphologic tumor changes. In particular, these methods are not specific for the detection of viable residual tumors after radiotherapy. By contrast, 18F-FDG PET scans are constantly being improved and can now be used for initial diagnosis, staging work-up, and detection of residual or recurrent disease (22–28). In this study, we used 18F-FDG PET to evaluate the response 4 wk after the completion of radiotherapy. Theoretically, metabolic imaging with 18F-FDG PET can differentiate between viable residual tumors and postradiotherapy nonmalignant conditions, and 18F-FDG PET is an increasingly popular oncology-imaging method. It is particularly useful for radiation oncologists because it can distinguish tumor recurrence from radiation fibrosis and necrosis (28–32). The results reported here indicate that, when a residual mass is observed on CT scans, 18F-FDG PET may be the most accurate and earliest noninvasive technique to differentiate recurrence from postradiotherapy changes. That is, an 18F-FDG uptake level of greater than 3 SUVs for the residual mass indicates a high probability of persistent disease, and salvage therapy should strongly be considered (19). We previously reported that a maximum SUV of 2.5 is the cutoff value for negative PET findings (17). We have shown here that 18F-FDG PET performed as early as 4 wk after the completion of radiotherapy can be used to evaluate the response to radiotherapy in patients with SCCHN. The optimal timing of postradiotherapy 18F-FDG PET in cases of head and neck cancer is a subject of debate. The hypothesis is that metabolic change is faster than morphologic change. If residual disease was suspected, CT/MRI scans were performed 2 mo after radiotherapy. Therefore, CT or MRI findings did not affect interpretation of the 18F-FDG PET findings in this study. The response evaluations were not affected by CT or MRI results but were determined only by the results of 18F-FDG PET.
Previous studies have reported that the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET is higher than the specificity when 18F-FDG PET is used to evaluate the response to radiotherapy (28,30,33–35). In our study, however, the specificity of 18F-FDG PET was higher than its sensitivity. The cutoff value of SUV may be subjective, however, which would affect the sensitivity and specificity of this method. Although the presence of viable tumor cells would be expected to increase the 18F-FDG uptake level, this method could not detect a very small volume of residual disease (a tumor of <5-mm diameter). When used to diagnose malignant tumors, 8F-FDG PET would be expected to be lower in sensitivity than in specificity. A reduction in 18F-FDG uptake would indicate a decrease in the number of viable tumor cells. According to previous reports of PET performed 12 wk after therapy, the negative predictive value of PET is high but the positive predictive value is low (19,36), and similar results were reported in this study. Therefore, it is possible that patients with negative 18F-FDG PET results achieved a complete response after radiotherapy. According to previous reports, when 18F-FDG PET is performed earlier, the positive predictive value is higher than the negative predictive value (23,37,38). Moreover, the authors of these papers concluded that performing 18F-FDG PET too early can give inaccurate results. By contrast, the present study and similar results show that the negative predictive value was much higher than the positive predictive value (19,36). We cannot clearly explain the reason for the discrepancy between previous reports and these findings.
In addition to being seen in malignant tumors, 18F-FDG uptake is also seen in various noncancerous conditions. For example, 18F-FDG uptake is increased in inflammatory conditions—a fact that limits the use of 18F-FDG PET in the diagnosis of early-stage tumors and after radiotherapy. Although the level of 18F-FDG uptake by malignant tumors is higher than the level seen in inflammatory conditions, the borderline between malignant and inflammatory conditions is not clear. Therefore, determination of the cutoff value for a negative PET result was of practical importance. Several previous studies have used SUVs for analysis of 18F-FDG uptake (11,15,19,39,40). Although there are various diagnostic methods, additional clinical findings such as initial disease status, treatment method, and patient status are essential when final clinical decisions are made.
The timing of 18F-FDG PET after radiotherapy is important when one is evaluating the response of both the primary tumor and the neck nodes; however, the optimal timing of 18F-FDG PET after radiotherapy remains controversial. Most studies have reported that an interval of 3–4 mo after completion of radiotherapy is required to avoid false-negative results (23,37). In addition, these reports suggest that 18F-FDG PET should be performed more than 3 mo after the completion of radiotherapy to reduce the probability of false-positive results (11,41). We think that clinical decision making should not be delayed for that length of time, in view of the anxiety of a patient who has to wait to learn the outcome of radiotherapy. Rogers et al. studied 12 patients with stage III or IV cancer of the head and neck (according to the classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer) who underwent PET 1 mo after the completion of definitive radiation, and unfortunately, only 14% showed true-negative results (37). We argue that the recommendation to wait 3–4 mo is contraindicated by our results (17). Another problem associated with delaying 18F-FDG PET is that delay may lead to inappropriate salvage times or loss of patients to follow-up. We think that the purpose of diagnosis is to provide appropriate treatment and to improve the patients' satisfaction. Imaging methods for evaluating the response to radiotherapy should provide information as early as possible because of the need to rapidly decide on the necessity of salvage treatment. Although the optimal timing of 18F-FDG PET to evaluate radiotherapy response has not been established, in our practice we aim to get information on the residual tumor as soon as possible and to reduce the time between completion of radiotherapy and 18F-FDG PET. Our data indicate that a 1-mo interval between the end of radiotherapy and 18F-FDG PET is reliable and that 18F-FDG PET can reliably and accurately identify recurrent or residual disease. In addition, early 18F-FDG PET scans can be useful for neck node evaluation. Moreover, scans performed after 3–4 mo increase the risk of regional progression or distant spread and of radiation-induced fibrosis. Thus, we believe that delaying 18F-FDG PET does not provide any further information to aid clinical decision making.
CONCLUSION
We have shown here that 18F-FDG PET performed 1 mo after the end of radiotherapy is a valuable diagnostic method for evaluating the response to radiotherapy in patients with SCCHN. These findings indicate that follow-up 18F-FDG PET 1 mo after completion of radiotherapy is not too early for evaluating the response to radiotherapy. If patients have negative 18F-FDG PET findings, we recommend only 1 mo of follow-up; however, when positive 18F-FDG PET findings are observed, further evaluation is needed.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by grant 02-PJ1-PG3-20802-0009 from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. A poster of this study was presented at Academy of Molecular Imaging 2005 Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, March 18, 2005.
Footnotes
-
COPYRIGHT © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.
References
- Received for publication July 17, 2006.
- Accepted for publication November 27, 2006.