RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Prospective Evaluation of a Tumor Control Probability Model Based on Dynamic 18F-FMISO PET for Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO J Nucl Med FD Society of Nuclear Medicine SP 1698 OP 1704 DO 10.2967/jnumed.119.227744 VO 60 IS 12 A1 Thorwarth, Daniela A1 Welz, Stefan A1 Mönnich, David A1 Pfannenberg, Christina A1 Nikolaou, Konstantin A1 Reimold, Matthias A1 La Fougère, Christian A1 Reischl, Gerald A1 Mauz, Paul-Stefan A1 Paulsen, Frank A1 Alber, Markus A1 Belka, Claus A1 Zips, Daniel YR 2019 UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/60/12/1698.abstract AB Our purpose was to evaluate an imaging parameter–response relationship between the extent of tumor hypoxia quantified by dynamic 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) PET/CT and the risk of relapse after radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Methods: Before a prospective cohort of 25 head and neck cancer patients started radiotherapy, they were examined with dynamic 18F-FMISO PET/CT 0–240 min after tracer injection. 18F-FMISO image parameters, including a hypoxia metric, MFMISO, derived from pharmacokinetic modeling of dynamic 18F-FMISO and maximum tumor-to-muscle ratio (TMRmax) at 4 h after injection, gross tumor volume (GTV), relative hypoxic volume based on MFMISO, and a logistic regression model combining GTV and TMRmax, were assessed and compared with a previous training cohort (n = 15). Dynamic 18F-FMISO was used to validate a tumor control probability model based on MFMISO. The prognostic potential with respect to local control of all potential parameters was validated using the concordance index for univariate Cox regression models determined from the training cohort, in addition to Kaplan–Meier analysis including the log-rank test. Results: The tumor control probability model was confirmed, indicating that dynamic 18F-FMISO allows stratification of patients into different risk groups according to radiotherapy outcome. In this study, MFMISO was the only parameter that was confirmed as prognostic in the independent validation cohort (concordance index, 0.71; P = 0.004). All other investigated parameters, such as TMRmax, GTV, relative hypoxic volume, and the combination of GTV and TMRmax, were not able to stratify patient groups according to outcome in this validation cohort (P = not statistically significant). Conclusion: In this study, the relationship between MFMISO and the risk of relapse was prospectively validated. The data support further evaluation and external validation of dynamic 18F-FMISO PET/CT as a promising method for patient stratification and hypoxia-based radiotherapy personalization, including dose painting.