1. Inicio
  2. Publicaciones
  3. Surrogating tumour cell density in head and neck cancer: [(18)F]FDG PET- versus ADC (MRI)-based approaches.

Surrogating tumour cell density in head and neck cancer: [(18)F]FDG PET- versus ADC (MRI)-based approaches.

Fecha de publicación: Fecha Ahead of Print:

Autores de IIS La Fe

Participantes ajenos a IIS La Fe

  • Kafkaletos A
  • Sachpazidis I
  • Mix M
  • Stoian R
  • Schäfer H
  • Bock M
  • Baltas D
  • Grosu AL

Grupos

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this study we examined the correlation between standardized uptake value (SUV) of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) within the gross tumor volume (GTV) of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In addition, we assessed the comparability of cell density (?) estimates obtained from FDG PET and MRI data. METHODS: Twenty-one HNSCC patients from a prospective FMISO imaging trial underwent pre-treatment PET/CT and MRI. We assessed correlations between FDG SUV (mean, max) and ADC (mean, min) within the GTV using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The tumor cell density within the GTV was calculated from FDG SUV and from ADC maps. For the estimation of ADC-based cell density, we used a published tumor cell volume fraction (v(TC)). Agreement between FDG- and ADC-derived cell density estimates was assessed. The best-fitting v(TC)* was computed to achieve equal mean ?(ADC) and ?(FDG) for each patient and was compared to the literature. RESULTS: The SUV and ADC metrics showed up to moderate negative correlations, but none of them were statistically significant at p < 0.05. The correlation of SUV(mean) vs. ADC(mean) with Pearson's correlation coefficient r = -0.426 and p = 0.054 and SUV(max) vs. ADC(min) with r = -0.414 and p = 0.062 suggested a weak negative trend. The average and standard deviation of mean ?(FDG) and ?(ADC) across our cohort were (1.8 ± 0.6) × 10(8) cells/ml and (3.3 ± 0.2) × 10(8) cells/ml. The difference between the mean ?(FDG) and ?(ADC) was statistically significant (p < 0.001). To achieve equal mean ?(ADC) and ?(FDG) for each patient, the mean optimal v(TC)* with standard deviation was 0.29 ± 0.09. Although significantly lower than the published mean v(TC)? (0.54), v(TC)* lies within the published range of v(TC) for HNSCCs (0.28 to 0.75). CONCLUSION: ADC and SUV metrics exhibited moderate but marginally insignificant correlation in this dataset. Although not directly interchangeable, the two methods provide comparable, clinically relevant cell density estimates, offering flexibility to use the most accessible modality for individualized treatment planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at German Clinical Trials Register on 20/08/2015 (DRKS00003830).

© 2025. The Author(s).

Datos de la publicación

ISSN/ISSNe:
1748-717X, 1748-717X

RADIATION ONCOLOGY  BMC

Tipo:
Article
Páginas:
137-137
PubMed:
40890739
Factor de Impacto:
1,013 SCImago ℠
Cuartil:
Q1 SCImago ℠

Documentos

  • No hay documentos

Métricas

Filiaciones mostrar / ocultar

Keywords

  • ADC; Cell density; FDG; HNSCC

Cita

Compartir