It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
We aim to evaluate the quantitative parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT (metabolic parameters) and MRI (morphologic parameters) for prognostication and risk stratification in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). 200 (147 males, aged 50 ± 13 years-old, mean ± S.D.) newly diagnosed patients with NPC (TxNxM0) were prospectively recruited. Primary tumor and nodal lesions were identified and segmented for both morphologic (volume, VOL) and metabolic (SUV and MTV) quantification. Independent predictive factors for recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were morphologic nodal volume (VOL_N, p < 0.001), TNM-stage (p = 0.022), N-Stage (p = 0.024) for RFS, and VOL_N (p = 0.014) for OS. Using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis, three risk-layers were identified for RFS: Stage I/II with VOL_N < 18cc (HR = 1), stage III /IV with VOL_N < 18cc (HR = 2.93), VOL_N ≥ 18cc (HR = 7.84) regardless of disease stage (p < 0.001). For OS, two risk layers were identified: VOL_N < 18cc (HR = 1), VOL_N ≥ 18cc (HR = 4.23) (p = 0.001). The 18cc threshold for morphologic nodal volume was validated by an independent cohort (n = 105). Based on the above risk-classification, 35 patients (17.5%) would have a higher risk than suggested by the TNM-staging system. Thus, morphologic nodal volume is an important factor in prognostication and risk stratification in NPC, and should be incorporated into the staging system, while PET parameters have no advantage for this purpose in our cohort.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
2 Department of Imaging & Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
3 Department of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
4 School of Nursing, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China