Early Response Prediction of Multiparametric Functional MRI and 18F-FDG-PET in Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with (Chemo)Radiation.

Abstract

Simple SummaryPatients with locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have variable responses to (chemo)radiotherapy. A reliable early prediction of outcomes allows for enhancing treatment efficacy and follow-up monitoring. Early tumoral changes can be captured by functional imaging (DWI/IVIM/DCE/18F-FDG-PET-CT) parameters, which allow for the construction of accurate patient-specific prognostic models for locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival. We also present clinical applicable risk stratification in high/medium/low risks for these patient outcomes. This can enable personalized treatment (adaptation) management early on during treatment, improve counseling and enhance patient-specific post-therapy monitoring.Background: Patients with locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have variable responses to (chemo)radiotherapy. A reliable prediction of outcomes allows for enhancing treatment efficacy and follow-up monitoring. Methods: Fifty-seven histopathologically-proven HNSCC patients with curative (chemo)radiotherapy were prospectively included. All patients had an MRI (DW,-IVIM, DCE-MRI) and 18F-FDG-PET/CT before and 10 days after start-treatment (intratreatment). Primary tumor functional imaging parameters were extracted. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to construct prognostic models and risk stratification for 2 year locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Model performance was measured by the cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The best LRFFS model contained the pretreatment imaging parameters ADC_kurtosis, Kep and SUV_peak, and intratreatment imaging parameters change (Δ) Δ-ADC_skewness, Δ-f, Δ-SUV_peak and Δ-total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (AUC = 0.81). Clinical parameters did not enhance LRFFS prediction. The best DMFS model contained pretreatment ADC_kurtosis and SUV_peak (AUC = 0.88). The best OS model contained gender, HPV-status, N-stage, pretreatment ADC_skewness, D, f, metabolic-active tumor volume (MATV), SUV_mean and SUV_peak (AUC = 0.82). Risk stratification in high/medium/low risk was significantly prognostic for LRFFS (p = 0.002), DMFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Intratreatment functional imaging parameters capture early tumoral changes that only provide prognostic information regarding LRFFS. The best LRFFS model consisted of pretreatment, intratreatment and Δ functional imaging parameters; the DMFS model consisted of only pretreatment functional imaging parameters, and the OS model consisted ofHPV-status, gender and only pretreatment functional imaging parameters. Accurate clinically applicable risk stratification calculators can enable personalized treatment (adaptation) management, early on during treatment, improve counseling and enhance patient-specific post-therapy monitoring.