High Reproducibility of Tumor Hypoxia Evaluated by 18F-Fluoromisonidazole PET for Head and Neck Cancer

Tumor hypoxia is well known to be radiation resistant. 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) PET has been used for noninvasive evaluation of hypoxia. Quantitative evaluation of 18F-FMISO uptake is thus expected to play an important role in the planning of dose escalation radiotherapy. However, the reproducibility of 18F-FMISO uptake has remained unclarified. We therefore investigated the reproducibility of tumor hypoxia by using quantitative analysis of 18F-FMISO uptake. Methods: Eleven patients with untreated head and neck cancer underwent 2 18F-FMISO PET/CT scans (18F-FMISO1 and 18F-FMISO2) with a 48-h interval prospectively. All images were acquired at 4 h after 18F-FMISO injection for 10 min. The maximum standardized uptake (SUVmax), tumor-to-blood ratio (TBR), and tumor-to-muscle ratio (TMR) of 18F-FMISO uptake were statistically compared between the 2 18F-FMISO scans by use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The hypoxic volume was calculated as the area with a TBR of greater than or equal to 1.5 or the area with a TMR of greater than or equal to 1.25 to assess differences in hypoxic volume between the 2 18F-FMISO scans. The distances from the maximum uptake locations of the 18F-FMISO1 images to those of the 18F-FMISO2 images were measured to evaluate the locations of 18F-FMISO uptake. Results: The SUVmax (mean ± SD) for 18F-FMISO1 and 18F-FMISO2 was 3.16 ± 1.29 and 3.02 ± 1.12, respectively, with the difference between the 2 scans being 7.0% ± 4.6%. The TBRs for 18F-FMISO1 and 18F-FMISO2 were 2.98 ± 0.83 and 2.97 ± 0.64, respectively, with a difference of 9.9% ± 3.3%. The TMRs for 18F-FMISO1 and 18F-FMISO2 were 2.25 ± 0.71 and 2.19 ± 0.67, respectively, with a difference of 7.1% ± 5.3%. The ICCs for SUVmax, TBR, and TMR were 0.959, 0.913, and 0.965, respectively. The difference in hypoxic volume based on TBR was 1.8 ± 1.8 mL, and the difference in hypoxic volume based on TMR was 0.9 ± 1.3 mL, with ICCs of 0.986 and 0.996, respectively. The maximum uptake locations of the 18F-FMISO1 images were different from those of the 18F-FMISO2 images and were within the full width at half maximum of the PET/CT scanner, except in 1 case. Conclusion: The values for 18F-FMISO PET uptake and hypoxic volume in head and neck tumors between the 2 18F-FMISO scans were highly reproducible. Such high reproducibility of tumor hypoxia is promising for accurate radiation planning.

[1]  Wade P. Smith,et al.  Hypoxia imaging with [F-18] FMISO-PET in head and neck cancer: potential for guiding intensity modulated radiation therapy in overcoming hypoxia-induced treatment resistance. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[2]  Seung Do Ahn,et al.  Planning study for available dose of hypoxic tumor volume using fluorine-18-labeled fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography for treatment of the head and neck cancer. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  T K Lewellen,et al.  Quantifying regional hypoxia in human tumors with positron emission tomography of [18F]fluoromisonidazole: a pretherapy study of 37 patients. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Vladimir Y. Panin,et al.  Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  Christine Bayer,et al.  Acute versus chronic hypoxia: why a simplified classification is simply not enough. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  J. Steinbach,et al.  Two or four hour ( 18 F)FMISO-PET in HNSCC is the contrast best? , 2011 .

[7]  D. Brizel,et al.  Prognostic value of tumor oxygenation in 397 head and neck tumors after primary radiation therapy. An international multi-center study. , 2005, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[8]  Simon R. Cherry,et al.  Improved Detection of Focal Cerebral Blood Flow Changes Using Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Tomography , 1993, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[9]  Daniela Thorwarth,et al.  A kinetic model for dynamic [18F]-Fmiso PET data to analyse tumour hypoxia , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  J. Eary,et al.  [18F]FMISO and [18F]FDG PET imaging in soft tissue sarcomas: correlation of hypoxia, metabolism and VEGF expression , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[11]  Matthias Reimold,et al.  Prognostic impact of hypoxia imaging with 18F-misonidazole PET in non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer before radiotherapy. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  D. Townsend,et al.  Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  J. Steinbach,et al.  Two or four hour [18F]FMISO-PET in HNSCC , 2011, Nuklearmedizin.

[14]  David L. Schwartz,et al.  Tumor Hypoxia Imaging with [F-18] Fluoromisonidazole Positron Emission Tomography in Head and Neck Cancer , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  Heinz H. Coenen,et al.  pO(2) Polarography versus positron emission tomography ([(18)F] fluoromisonidazole, [(18)F]-2-fluoro-2'-deoxyglucose). An appraisal of radiotherapeutically relevant hypoxia. , 2004 .

[16]  Sigrid Stroobants,et al.  Dose Painting in Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Value of Repeated Functional Imaging with 18F-FDG PET, 18F-Fluoromisonidazole PET, Diffusion-Weighted MRI, and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  M. Lodge,et al.  Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional acquisition for 18F-FDG PET oncology studies performed on an LSO-based scanner. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  Sadek Nehmeh,et al.  The influence of changes in tumor hypoxia on dose-painting treatment plans based on 18F-FMISO positron emission tomography. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  R. Onimaru,et al.  [18F]fluoromisonidazole and a new PET system with semiconductor detectors and a depth of interaction system for intensity modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  W. McBride,et al.  Radiation Resistance of Cancer Stem Cells: The 4 R's of Radiobiology Revisited , 2010, Stem cells.

[21]  Daniela Thorwarth,et al.  Modelling and simulation of the influence of acute and chronic hypoxia on [18F]fluoromisonidazole PET imaging , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  Sadek Nehmeh,et al.  Fluorine-18-labeled fluoromisonidazole positron emission and computed tomography-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a feasibility study. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Gig Mageras,et al.  Reproducibility of intratumor distribution of (18)F-fluoromisonidazole in head and neck cancer. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  K L Lindsley,et al.  Evaluation of oxygenation status during fractionated radiotherapy in human nonsmall cell lung cancers using [F-18]fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[25]  R. Fisher,et al.  Tirapazamine, Cisplatin, and Radiation versus Fluorouracil, Cisplatin, and Radiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG 98.02). , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  T W Griffin,et al.  Imaging of hypoxia in human tumors with [F-18]fluoromisonidazole. , 1992, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[27]  G. W. Snedecor Statistical Methods , 1964 .

[28]  John A. Cornell,et al.  Statistical Methods (7th ed.) , 2012 .

[29]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[30]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.