Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT methods of analysis for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the predictive value of 18F-FDG PET/CT semiquantitative parameters for locally advanced low rectal cancer (LARC) treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT).

Methods

68 patients with LARC had 18F-FDG PET/CT scans twice (baseline and 5–6 weeks post-nCRT). All patients underwent surgery with preservation of the sphincter 8 weeks later. 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis was performed by visual response assessment (VRA) and semiquantitative parameters: SUVmaxbaseline, SUVmeanbaseline, MTVbaseline, TLGbaseline, SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, MTVpost-nCRT, TLGpost-nCRT; ΔSUVmax and mean and Response indexes (RImax% and RImean%). Assessment of nCRT tumor response was performed according to the Mandard’s Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) and (y)pTNM staging on the surgical specimens. Concordances of VRA with TRG, and with (y)pTNM criteria were evaluated by Cohen’s K. Results were compared by t student test for unpaired groups. ROC curve analysis was performed.

Results

VRA analysis of post-nCRT 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for the (y)pTNM outcome showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 87.5%, 66.7%, 83.8%, 92.5%, and 53.3%, respectively. Concordances of VRA with TRG and with (y)pTNM were moderate. For the outcome variable TRG, the statistical difference between responders and non-responders was significant for SUVmaxpost-nCRT and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM, there was a significant difference for MTVbaseline, SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, MTVpost-nCRT, RImax%, and RImean%. ROC analysis showed better AUCs: for the outcome variable TRG for SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM for MTVbaseline, SUVmaxpost-nCRT, SUVmeanpost-nCRT, MTVpost-nCRT, RImax%, and RImean%. No significant differences among parameters were found.

Conclusions

Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations for 18F-FDG PET/CT are the optimal approach; a valid parameter for response prediction has still to be established.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gil-delgado MA, Khayat D (2008) Cancro del colon e del retto. In: Pollock RE, Doroshok JH, Khayat D, Nakao A, O’Sullivah B, editors. UICC manuale di oncologia clinica, 8th ed. Torino: Minerva medica; pp 511–529.

  2. Tagliabue L (2013) The emerging role of FDG PET/CT in rectal cancer management: is it time to use the technique for early prognostication? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:652–656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. De Paoli A, Chiara S, Luppi G, et al. (2006) Capecitabine in combination with preoperative radiation therapy in locally advanced, resectable, rectal cancer: a multicentric phase II study. Ann Oncol 17(2):246–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg R, Nekarda H, Zimmermann F, et al. (2008) Histopathological response after preoperative radiochemotherapy in rectal carcinoma is associated with improved overall survival. J Surg Oncol 97(1):8–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozis SE, Soydal C, Akyol C, et al. (2014) The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the primary staging of rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 12:26–32.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Griffin N, Goh V (2013) Functional Imaging of the bowel. Abdom Imaging 38:1203–1213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guerra L, Niespolo R, Di Pisa G, et al. (2011) Change in glucose metabolism measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT as a predictor of histopathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. Abdom Imaging 36:38–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee SJ, Kim JG, Lee SW, et al. (2013) Clinical implications of initial FDG-PET/CT in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 71:1201–1207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Niccoli-Asabella A, Altini C, Notaristefano A, et al. (2013) A retrospective study comparing contrast-enhanced computed tomography with 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the early follow-up of patients with retroperitoneal sarcomas. Nucl Med Commun 34(1):32–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Niccoli-Asabella A, Altini C, De Luca R, et al. (2014) Prospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT’ predictive value in patients with low rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and conservative surgery. BioMed Res Int 2014:952843. doi:10.1155/2014/952843.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choi H, Yoona H, Kima TS, et al. (2013) Voxel-based dual-time 18F-FDG parametric imaging for rectal cancer: differentiation of residual tumor from postchemoradiotherapy changes. Nucl Med Commun 34:1166–1173.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl1):122S–150S.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2(3):159–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee JA (2010) Segmentation of positron emission tomography images: some recommendations for target delineation in radiation oncology. Radiother Oncol 96(3):302–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. (1994) Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiation therapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer 73:2680–2686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brierley JD, Greene FL, Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2006) The ‘‘y’’ symbol: an important classification tool for neoadjuvant cancer treatment. Cancer 106:2526–2527.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W, et al. (2004) Operative vs. nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg 240(4):711–717.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Glynne-Jones R, Wallace M, Livingstone JI, Meyrick-Thomas J (2008) Complete clinical response after preoperative chemoradiation in rectal cancer: is a “wait and see” policy justified? Dis Colon Rectum 51(1):10–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rödel C, Martus P, Papadoupolos T, et al. (2005) Prognostic significance of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8688–8696.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huh JW, Min JJ, Lee JH, Kim HR, Kim YJ (2012) The predictive role of sequential FDG-PET/CT in response of locally advanced rectal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Am J Clin Oncol 35(4):340–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vecchio FM, Valentini V, Minsky BD, et al. (2005) The relationship of pathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) and outcomes after preoperative therapy in rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:752–760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deneke T, Rau B, Hoffmann KT (2005) Comparison of CT, MRI and FDG-PET in response prediction of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after multimodal preoperative therapy: is there a benefit in using functional imaging? Eur Radiol 15:1658–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, et al. (2002) Biologic correlates of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 20:379–387.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grassetto G, Marzola MC, Minicozzi A, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D (2011) F-18 FDG PET/CT in rectal cancer: where are we now? Clin Nucl Med 36(10):884–888.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maffione AM, Ferretti A, Grassetto G, et al. (2013) Fifteen different 18F-FDG PET/CT qualitative and quantitative parameters investigated as pathological response predictors of locally advanced rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:853–864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Murcia Duréndez MJ, Frutos Esteban L, Luján J, et al. (2013) The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessing the response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:91–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Geus-Oei LF, Vriens D, van Laarhoven HW, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ (2009) Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):43S–54S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Li C, Lan X, Yuan H, et al. (2014) 18F-FDG PET predicts pathological response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with primary rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Nucl Med 28(5):436–446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chung MK, Jeong HS, Park SG, et al. (2009) Metabolic Tumor Volume of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Predicts Short-Term Outcome to Radiotherapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Pharyngeal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 15(18):5861–5868.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Herrmann K, Bundschuh RA, Rosenberg R, et al. (2011) Comparison of different SUV-based methods for response prediction to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer by FDG-PET and MRI. Mol Imaging Biol 13:1011–1019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Martoni AA, Di Fabio F, Pinto C, et al. (2011) Prospective study on the FDG-PET/CT predictive and prognostic values in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and radical surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Oncol 22:650–656.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, et al. (2014) Predicting complete response to neoadjuvant CRT for distant rectal cancer using sequential PET/CT imaging. Tech Coloproctol 18(8):699–708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Capirci C, Rubello D, Pasini F, et al. (2009) The role of dual-time combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the staging and restaging workup of locally advanced rectal cancer, treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy and radical surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(5):1461–1469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lambrecht M, Deroose C, Roels S, et al. (2010) The use of FDG PET/CT and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for response prediction before, during and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 49:956–963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cascini GL, Avallone A, Delrio P, et al. (2006) 18F-FDG PET is an early predictor of pathologic tumor response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced cancer. J Nucl Med 47:1241–1248.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moon SH, Hyun SH, Choi JY (2013) Prognostic significance of volume-based PET parameters in cancer patients. Korean J Radiol 14(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2013) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Rectal cancer. Table of Contents Discussion, Version 3.2013, table MS-16, www.nccn.org. Accessed 1 Sep 2013.

Download references

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Unit, D.I.M., University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Corinna Altini, Artor Niccoli Asabella, Margherita Fanelli, Domenico Rubini & Giuseppe Rubini

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Istituto Tumori G. Paolo II, IRCCS, Bari, Italy

    Raffaele De Luca, Cosimo Caliandro & Severino Montemurro

  3. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and of Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Natale Quartuccio

  4. Positron Emission Tomography Centre, IRMET S.p.A., Euromedic, Turin, Italy

    Angelina Cistaro

  5. PET Pediatric AIMN InterGroup, Turin, Italy

    Angelina Cistaro

  6. Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Angelina Cistaro

Authors
  1. Corinna Altini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Artor Niccoli Asabella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raffaele De Luca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margherita Fanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cosimo Caliandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Natale Quartuccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Domenico Rubini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Angelina Cistaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Severino Montemurro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giuseppe Rubini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Artor Niccoli Asabella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altini, C., Niccoli Asabella, A., De Luca, R. et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT methods of analysis for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer. Abdom Imaging 40, 1190–1202 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0277-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0277-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation