[Value of PET imaging in head and neck cancer]. / Stellenwert der PET-Bildgebung bei Kopf-Hals-Tumoren.

The combination of positron-emission tomography (PET) with cross-sectional imaging in particular is becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis of head and neck tumors because, in addition to pure anatomy, the metabolic activity of tissue can be visualized and assessed. The combination of PET and computed tomography (CT) is already an established procedure in head and neck tumor patients in some indications, e.g., for primary tumor detection in cancer of unknown primary (CUP) syndrome or also after completed primary radio(chemo)therapy for evaluation of response, especially also with regard to nodal status. In some cases, salvage neck dissection can thus be avoided in the case of PET-negative findings. In the context of primary diagnosis, PET/CT imaging can be used primarily to evaluate distant metastasis. According to current guidelines, PET-based imaging is not (yet) of value in determining the local extent at initial diagnosis. A challenge is the still limited reimbursement by health insurance companies, which currently allow only certain indications, and the still lack of nationwide coverage.

Combined morphologic-metabolic biomarkers from [18F]FDG-PET/CT stratify prognostic groups in low-risk NSCLC.

AIM: The aim of this study was to derive prognostic parameters from 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) in patients with low-risk NSCLC and determine their prognostic value. METHODS: 81 (21 female, mean age 66 a) therapy-naive patients that underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT before histologic confirmation of NSCLC with stadium I and II between 2008-2016 were included. A mean follow-up time of 58 months (13-176), overall and progression free survival (OS, PFS) were registered. A volume of interest for the primary tumor was defined on PET and CT images. Parameters SUVmax, PET-solidity, PET-circularity, and CT-volume were analyzed. To evaluate the prognostic value of each parameter for OS, a minimum p-value approach was used to define cutoff values, survival analysis, and log-rank tests were performed, including subgroup analysis for combinations of parameters. RESULTS: Mean OS was 58±28 months. Poor OS was associated with a tumor CT-volume >14.3 cm3 (p=0.02, HR=7.0, CI 2.7-17.7), higher SUVmax values >12.2 (p=0.003; HR=3.0, CI 1.3-6.7) and PET-solidity >0.919 (p=0.004; HR=3.0, CI 1.0-8.9). Combined parameter analysis revealed worse prognosis in larger volume/high SUVmax tumors compared to larger volume/lower SUVmax (p=0.028; HR=2.5, CI 1.1-5.5), high PET-solidity/low volume (p=0.01; HR=2.4, CI 0.8-6.6) and low SUVmax/high PET-solidity (p=0.02, HR=4.0, CI 0.8-19.0). CONCLUSION: Even in this group of low-risk NSCLC patients, we identified a subgroup with a significantly worse prognosis by combining morphologic-metabolic biomarkers from [18F]FDG-PET/CT. The combination of SUVmax and CT-volume performed best. Based on these preliminary data, future prospective studies to validate this combined morphologic-metabolic imaging biomarker for potential therapeutic decisions seem promising.

[Value of PET imaging in head and neck cancer]. / Stellenwert der PET-Bildgebung bei Kopf-Hals-Tumoren.

The combination of positron-emission tomography (PET) with cross-sectional imaging in particular is becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis of head and neck tumors because, in addition to pure anatomy, the metabolic activity of tissue can be visualized and assessed. The combination of PET and computed tomography (CT) is already an established procedure in head and neck tumor patients in some indications, e.g., for primary tumor detection in cancer of unknown primary (CUP) syndrome or also after completed primary radio(chemo)therapy for evaluation of response, especially also with regard to nodal status. In some cases, salvage neck dissection can thus be avoided in the case of PET-negative findings. In the context of primary diagnosis, PET/CT imaging can be used primarily to evaluate distant metastasis. According to current guidelines, PET-based imaging is not (yet) of value in determining the local extent at initial diagnosis. A challenge is the still limited reimbursement by health insurance companies, which currently allow only certain indications, and the still lack of nationwide coverage.