Ultrasound diagnosis of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma and ultrasound evaluation of treatment efficacy (changes in tumor volume)

The study objective is to assess the capabilities of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas and in the evaluation of treatment efficacy (changes in tumor volume).

Materials and methods. This study included 98 patients (27 (27.5 %) females and 71 (72.5 %) males aged between 20 and 78 years with oropharyngeal tumors; of them, 12 (12.2 %) patients had recurrent tumors. Sixty-seven (68.4 %) participants had their tumors located in the tonsils; 31 (31.6 %) patients had tumors of the root of the tongue; 47 (48.0 %) patients presented with tumors invading adjacent tissues; 57 (58.2 %) patients had their lymph nodes involved. Thirty-two patients were operated at the first stage of treatment, whereas 66 (67.3 %) individuals received induction chemotherapy followed by sequential chemoradiotherapy. Treatment efficacy was evaluated 2 weeks following the completion of the second course of induction chemotherapy. We assessed tumor volume, its structure, type and intensity of vascularization, and the number and size of lymph nodes affected by metastasis. Ultrasonography findings were compared with the results of fibroscopy, X-ray computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed 2 weeks following the completion of the second course of induction chemotherapy (no later than 7–10 days).

Results. The disagreement between histology and ultrasonography findings reflecting tumor volume (of either newly diagnosed or recurrent tumor) was statistically insignificant. The results of X-ray CT were more likely to be in agreement with histology than the ultrasonography results (85.0 % vs 70.0 %); however, this difference was not statistically significant. Data of X-ray CT and ultrasonography on the tumor volume demonstrated no significant difference between them. MRI and ultrasonography findings on the tumor volume were consistent in 50 % of cases. We identified the most common changes in the structure of the oropharyngeal tumors typical of positive and negative dynamics after 2 courses of induction chemotherapy. Patients with positive dynamics demonstrated a significant decrease in tumor volume detected by all diagnostic methods used (ultrasonography, X-ray CT, and MRI). There was a significant negative correlation between the efficacy of treatment assessed by ultrasonography and the grade of therapeutic pathomorphosis assessed by histology (r = –0.69; р = 0.0014).

Conclusion. The accuracy of ultrasonography for the estimation of oropharyngeal tumor volume and its spread is comparable with that of X-ray CT and MRI. The disagreement between these methods was statistically insignificant. Ultrasonography is a more sensitive method for the evaluation of patient response to treatment than clinical data.

1. Chaturvedi A.K., Anderson W.F., Lortet-Tieulent J. et al. Worldwide trends in incidence rates for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. J Clin Oncol 2013;31(36):4550–9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.3870.

2. Jemal A., Simard E.P., Dorell C. et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus (HPV)- associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105(3):175–201. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs491.

3. Shield K.D., Ferlay J., Jemal A. et al. The global incidence of lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers by subsite in 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67(1):51–64. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21384.

4. Koch W.M. Clinical features of HPV-related head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: presentation and work-up. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012;45(4):779–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2012.04.004.

5. Cianchetti M., Mancuso A.A., Amdur R.J. et al. Diagnostic evaluation of squamous cell carcinoma metastatic to cervical lymph nodes from an unknown head and neck primary site. Laryngoscope 2009;119(12):2348–54. DOI: 10.1002/lary.20638.

6. Haas I., Hoffmann T.K., Engers R., Ganzer U. Diagnostic strategies in cervical carcinoma of an unknown primary (CUP). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2002;259(6):325–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-002-0470-1.

7. Ang K.K., Harris J., Wheeler R. et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363(1):24–35. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912217.

8. Fakhry C., Westra W.H., Li S. et al. Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(4):261–9. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn011.

9. Faraji F., Padilla E.S., Blitz D. et al. Reader performance in the ultra-sonographic evaluation of oropharyngeal carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2018;77:105–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.12.012.

10. Corey A.S., Hudgins P.A. Radiographic imaging of human papillomavirus related carcinomas of the oropharynx. Head Neck Pathol 2012;6 Suppl 1:S25–40. DOI: 10.1007/s12105-012-0374-3.

11. Deschler D.G., Richmon J.D., Khariwala S.S. et al. The “new” head and neck cancer patient-young, nonsmoker, nondrinker, and HPV positive: evaluation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;151(3):375–80. DOI: 10.1177/0194599814538605.

12. Liu W.P., Reaugamornrat S., Sorger J.M. et al. Intraoperative image-guided transoral robotic surgery: pre-clinical studies. Int J Med Robot 2015;11(2): 256–67. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1602.

13. Blanco R.G., Califano J., Messing B. et al. Transcervical utrasonography is feasible to visualize and evaluate base of tongue cancers. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e87565. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087565.

14. Fakhry C., Agrawal N., Califano J. et al. The use of ultrasound in the search for the primary site of unknown primary head and neck squamous cell cancers. Oral Oncol 2014;50(7):640–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.03.015.

15. Mydlarz W.K., Liu J., Blanco R., Fakhry C. Transcervical ultrasound identifies primary tumor site of unknown primary head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;151(6): 1090–2. DOI: 10.1177/0194599814549181.

16. Coquia S.F., Hamper U.M., Holman M.E. et al. Visualization of the oropharynx with transcervical ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205(6):1288–94. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14299.

17. Knegjens J.L., Hauptmann M., Pameijer F.A. et al. Tumor volume as prognostic factor in chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2011;33(3):375–82. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21459.

18. Mancuso A.A., Mukherji S.K., Schmal- fuss I. et al. Preradiotherapy computed tomography as a predictor of local control in supraglottic carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(2):631–7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.2.631.

19. Rutkowski T. The role of tumor volume in radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 2014;9:23. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-23.

20. Lavnikova G.A. Histological method for the quantitative evaluation of the therapeutic lesion of tumor. Moscow, 1979. 13 p. (In Russ.)