In some cases, distant metastases may develop soon after completion of (C)RT although not detected during initial diagnostic workup. For clinical decision making, diagnosing distant spread of the disease at this phase is critical because radical surgery for loco-regional residual disease will probably not be considered beneficial in these cases.

FDG-PET/CT imaging is recognized as a preferred method for the detection of distant metastases in HNSCC,13,15,16 which further supports its use also in monitoring treatment response after (C) RT. In the present series, three patients (3%) were found to have distant metastasis in the post-treatment FDG-PET/CT, and one patient was found to have pulmonary metastases of a previous cancer.


Continue Reading

The current study is limited mainly by the size of the patient series and by the retrospective nature of the analysis. It must be noted, however, that in the two meta-analyses cited earlier, there are only a few studies with a larger patient cohort. The present heterogeneity in the treatment modalities and in the patient characteristics reflect the typical clinical practice in the management of head and neck cancer.

The aim of the present study was to retrospectively audit our current protocol, and we did not address the question about the best available imaging modality in the post-treatment setting. To further clarify this issue, new prospective, comparative studies will be needed including also financial aspects.

In conclusion, the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in the assessment of treatment response after definitive (C)RT for HNSCC was good, further supporting its use in this setting. The NPV, specificity, and accuracy were high for both primary site and neck.

Also the PPV for the neck was high: there were no false positive findings in the assessment of neck nodes. Post-treatment FDG-PET/CT obviously has potential to guide clinical decision-making. Patients with negative scan can fairly safely be followed up clinically only, while positive scan necessitates a neck dissection and/or biopsies from the primary tumor area to rule out or confirm residual tumor.

Author Contributions

HK was involved in the study design, collection and statistical analysis of data, and drafting of the manuscript. TM, JS, and KS were involved in the study design, collection of data, and drafting of the manuscript. AM was involved in the study design and in drafting and revisions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. Sewnaik A, Keereweer S, Al-Mamgani A, et al. High complication risk of salvage surgery after chemoradiation failures. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132(1):96–100.
  2. Kubota K, Yokoyama J, Yamaguchi K, et al. FDG-PET delayed imaging for the detection of head and neck cancer recurrence after radio-chemotherapy: comparison with MRI/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(4):590–595.
  3. Lell M, Baum U, Greess H, et al. Head and neck tumors: imaging recurrent tumor and post-therapeutic changes with CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2000;33(3):239–247.
  4. Isles MG, McConkey C, Mehanna HM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Clin Otolaryngol.
  5. Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S, et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(11):2083–2095.
  6. Yom SS, Machtay M, Biel MA, et al. Survival impact of planned restaging and early surgical salvage following definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the oropharynx and hypopharynx. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28(4):385–392.
  7. Lango MN, Myers JN, Garden AS. Controversies in surgical management of the node-positive neck after chemoradiation. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2009;19(1):24–28.
  8. Karakaya E, Yetmen O, Oksuz DC, et al. Outcomes following chemoradiotherapy for N3 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma without a planned neck dissection. Oral Oncol. 2013;49(1):55–59.
  9. Hamoir M, Ferlito A, Schmitz S, et al. The role of neck dissection in the setting of chemoradiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with advanced neck disease. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(3):203–210.
  10. Ong SC, Schöder H, Lee NY, et al. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing the neck after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregional advanced head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(4):532–540.
  11. Prestwich RJ, Sykes J, Carey B, Sen M, Dyker KE, Scarsbrook AF. Improving target definition for head and neck radiotherapy: a place for magnetic resonance imaging and 18-fluoride fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24(8):577–589.
  12. Strobel K, Haerle SK, Stoeckli SJ, et al. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC)—detection of synchronous primaries with (18)F-FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(6):919–927.
  13. Gourin CG, Watts T, Williams HT, Patel VS, Bilodeau PA, Coleman TA. Identification of distant metastases with PET-CT in patients with suspected recurrent head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(4):703–706.
  14. Haerle SK, Schmid DT, Ahmad N, Hany TF, Stoeckli SJ. The value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of distant metastases in high-risk patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2011;47(7):653–659.
  15. Senft A, de Bree R, Hoekstra OS, et al. Screening for distant metastases in head and neck cancer patients by chest CT or whole body FDG-PET: a prospective multicenter trial. Radiother Oncol. 2008;87(2):221–229.
  16. Uyl-de Groot CA, Senft A, de Bree R, Leemans CR, Hoekstra OS. Chest CT and whole-body 18F-FDG PET are cost-effective in screening for distant metastases in head and neck cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(2):176–182.
  17. Delouya G, Igidbashian L, Houle A, et al. 18F-FDG-PET imaging in radiotherapy tumor volume delineation in treatment of head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011;101(3):362–368.