Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anal cancer FDG-PET standard uptake value: correlation with tumor characteristics, treatment response and survival

  • ONCOLOGY IMAGING
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The present work studies the correlation of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) standardized uptake value (SUV) with tumor characteristics, clinical response and prognosis in a series of anal canal cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Fifty-five patients were included in the present analysis. PET maximum SUV (SUVmax) of primary tumor was calculated for each patient. The correlation with clinical parameters, tumor response and survival data were analyzed.

Results

SUVmax significantly correlated with T-stage (p = 0.01) and histology (p = 0.03). Median SUVmax was higher for lesions with partial response (PR, 21/55, 38 %) than for lesions with complete response (CR, 34/55, 62 %) but without statistical significance (p = 0.17). The actuarial disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 53.0 and 77.8 % at 2 years and 41.3 and 58.6 % at 5 years, respectively. Median SUVmax did not statistically correlate with clinical response or survival. CR and T1–T2 stage were statistically significant prognostic factors for disease-free survival (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively) and CR was significant also for overall survival (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT SUVmax cannot directly predict tumor response and survival, but it is strongly associated with tumor characteristics such as primary tumor stage and histology, being the first one of the most important and validated prognostic factors for anal cancer.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Glynne-Jones R, Nilsson PJ, Aschele C et al (2014) Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:1165–1176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Martin V, Zanellato E, Franzetti-Pellanda A et al (2014) EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA characterization in squamous cell anal cancer. Histol Histopathol 29:513–521

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nigro ND, Vaitkevicius VK, Considine B (1974) Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a preliminary report. Dis Colon Rectum 17:354–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial Working UK Party Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (1996) Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. Lancet 348:1049–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartelink H, Roelofsen F, Eschwege F et al (1997) Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer radiotherapy and gastrointestinal cooperative groups. J Clin Oncol 15:2040–2049

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Myerson RJ, Kong F, Birnbaum EH et al (2001) Radiation therapy for epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal, clinical and treatment factors associated with outcome. Radiother Oncol 61:15–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Scherrer A, Reboul F, Martin D, Dupuy JC, Menu Y (1990) CT of malignant anal canal tumours. Radiographics 10:433–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Roach SC, Hulse PA, Moulding FJ, Wilson R, Carrington BM (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of anal canal. Clin Radiol 60:1111–1119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Myerson RJ, Garofalo MC, El Naqa I et al (2009) Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: an radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:824–830

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL et al (2010) Prognostic factors derived from a prospective database dictate clinical biology of anal cancer. The intergroup trial (RTOG 98-11). Cancer 116:4007–4013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gunderson LL, Moughan J, Ajani JA et al (2013) RTOG 98-11. anal carcinoma: impact of TN category of disease on survival, disease relapse, and colostomy failure in US gastrointestinal intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase 3 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87:638–645

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bassi MC, Turri L, Sacchetti G et al (2008) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in preoperative conformal radiotherapy of rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:1423–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deantonio L, Beldi D, Gambaro G et al (2008) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and radiotherapy treatment planning of head and neck carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 3:29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoo J, Henderson S, Walker-Dilks C (2013) Evidence-based guideline recommendations on the use of positron emission tomography imaging in head and neck cancer. Clin Oncol 25:33–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Trautmann TG, Zuger JH (2005) Positron emission tomography for pre-treatment staging and posttreatment evaluation in cancer of the anal canal. Mol Imaging Biol 7:309–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cotter SE, Grigsby PW, Siegel BA et al (2006) PET/CT in the evaluation of anal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:720–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen BT, Joon DL, Khoo V et al (2008) Assessing the impact of FDG-PET in the management of anal cancer. Radiother Oncol 87:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Winton E, Heriot AG, Ng M et al (2009) The impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the staging, management and outcome of anal cancer. Br J Cancer 100:693–700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Krengli M, Milia ME, Turri L et al (2010) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in conformal radiotherapy of anal carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 5:10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kidd E, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer 110:1738–1744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M et al (2008) Primary tumour SUVmax measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol 3:6–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kidd EA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Grigsby PW (2010) Anal cancer maximum F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography is correlated with prognosis. Radiother Oncol 95:288–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bazan JG, Koong AC, Kapp DS et al (2013) Metabolic tumour volume predicts disease progression and survival in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. J Nucl Med 54:27–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Das P, Bhatia S, Eng C et al (2007) Predictors and patterns of recurrence after definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:794–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gunderson LL, Winter KA, Ajani JA et al (2012) Long-term update of US GI Intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase III trial for anal carcinoma: survival, relapse, and colostomy failure with concurrent chemoradiation involving fluorouracil/mitomycin versus fluorouracil/cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 30:4344–4351

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Rizk N, Downey RJ, Akhurst T et al (2006) Preoperative 18 FDG-PET standardized uptake values predict survival after esophageal adenocarcinoma resection. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1076–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee P, Weerasuriya DK, Lavori PW et al (2007) Metabolic tumour burden predicts for disease progression and death in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:328–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Higgins A, Hoang JK, Roach M et al (2012) Analysis of pretreatment FDG-PET SUV parameters in head-and-neck cancer: tumour SUVmean has superior prognostic value. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:548–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee P, Bazan JG, Lavori PW et al (2012) Metabolic tumour volume is an independent prognostic factor in patients treated definitively for non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 13:52–58

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tang C, Murphy JD, Khong B et al (2012) Validation that metabolic tumour volume predicts outcome in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:1514–1520

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F et al (2008) Tumor response and survival predicted by post-therapy FDG-PET/CT in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:180–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the “Lega Italiana per la lotta contro i tumori LILT (Italian league against cancer)”, Section of Vercelli, Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiotherapy, University Hospital “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy

    Letizia Deantonio, Maria Elisa Milia, Carola Perotti, Lucia Turri & Marco Krengli

  2. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy

    Tiziana Cena

  3. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy

    Gianmauro Sacchetti

  4. Medical Physics, University Hospital “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy

    Marco Brambilla

  5. Department of Translational Medicine, University of “Piemonte Orientale”, Via Solaroli, 17, 28100, Novara, Italy

    Letizia Deantonio, Tiziana Cena & Marco Krengli

Authors
  1. Letizia Deantonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Elisa Milia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiziana Cena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianmauro Sacchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carola Perotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Brambilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lucia Turri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marco Krengli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Krengli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The study has been approved by the local ethics committee and has therefore been performed according to the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deantonio, L., Milia, M.E., Cena, T. et al. Anal cancer FDG-PET standard uptake value: correlation with tumor characteristics, treatment response and survival. Radiol med 121, 54–59 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0562-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0562-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation