4.7 Article

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of [18F]FDG and [18F]FAZA positron emission tomography of head and neck cancers and associations with HPV status and treatment outcome

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-015-3247-7

Keywords

Hypoxia; PET; Head and neck cancer; Radiation therapy

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Cancer Institute of the United States [R01 CA118582, P01 CA67166]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose While methods for imaging tumor hypoxia with positron emission tomography (PET) have been developed, optimal methods for interpreting and utilizing these datasets in the clinic remain unclear. In this study, we analyzed hypoxia PET images of head and neck cancer patients and compared imaging metrics with human papilloma virus (HPV) status and clinical outcome. Methods Forty-one patients treated as part of a phase III trial of the hypoxic cytotoxin tirapazamine (TROG 02.02) were imaged with PET using fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA). FDG and FAZA PET images were interpreted qualitatively and quantitatively, and compared with tumor T stage, HPV status, and treatment outcome using multivariate statistics. Results PET signals in the tumor and lymph nodes exhibited significant intra- and inter-patient variability. The FAZA hypoxic volume demonstrated a significant correlation with tumor T stage. PET-hypoxic tumors treated with cisplatin exhibited significantly worse treatment outcomes relative to PET-oxic tumors or PET-hypoxic tumors treated with tirapazamine. Conclusion Quantitative analysis of FAZA PET yielded metrics that correlated with clinical T stage and were capable of stratifying patient outcome. These results encourage further development of this technology, with particular emphasis on establishment of robust quantitative methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available