Response evaluation of cervical lymph nodes after chemoradiation in patients with head and neck cancer - does additional [18F]FDG-PET-CT help?

Abstract

Abstract Background Contrast-enhanced high-resolution computed tomography (contrast-CT) is a standard imaging modality following primary concurrent radiochemotherapy (RCT) for response evaluation in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We investigated the additional benefit of Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) - positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT), if complete response (CR) in the neck based on contrast-CT was considered unsafe by the interdisciplinary tumor board (ITB). Methods In a retrospective observational study, patients recorded in the institutional tumor registry with incident advanced HNSCC following first line treatment with RCT were eligible. If contrast-CT results of the neck were equivocal or positive at response evaluation, a neck dissection (ND) was scheduled. While waiting for the ND, a [18F]FDG-PET-CT was performed in addition. The histopathological outcome of ND served as reference criterion. Accuracy parameters including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for both, contrast-CT and PET-CT, served as main outcome parameters. Results A total of 41 HNSCC patients with positive or equivocal posttreatment contrast-CT were eligible for post-RCT-ND. Of these, 33 received an additional [18F]FDG-PET-CT prior to surgery. Median interval between completion of RCT and the ([18F]FDG)-PET-CT was 10 weeks. Vital persistent tumor in the neck was histopathologically found in 13 of 33 patients with positive or equivocal posttreatment contrast-CT. For contrast-CT and [18F]FDG-PET-CT, sensitivity was 92.3 and 69.2% and did not differ statistically significantly (p = 0.250) whereas specificity was significantly higher for [18F]FDG-PET-CT compared with contrast-CT (80% vs. 25%, p = 0.001). For contrast-CT and [18F]FDG-PET-CT accuracy, PPV and NPV was 31.7, 12.0,96.7 and 78.9, 27.8,95.0%, respectively. Conclusion A negative [18F]FDG-PET-CT did not improve the exclusion of persistent vital tumor in the neck after primary RCT in comparison with contrast-CT alone. However, a positive [18F]FDG-PET-CT was a considerably better indicator of persistent, vital tumor in the neck than contrast-CT. If, based on the [18F]FDG-PET-CT result, the ND in patients with an uncertain or positive neck response in contrast CT had been omitted, the treatment of persistent nodal disease would have been delayed in 3 of 13 patients. On the other hand, if ND would have only been performed in [18F]FDG-PET-CT positive patients, an unnecessary ND would have been avoided in 11 of 20 patients.