Baseline 18F-FDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer
- 321 Downloads
The objectives of this study were to investigate the predictive value of tumour measurements on 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) pretreatment scan regarding therapy response in oesophageal cancer and to evaluate the impact of tumour delineation strategies.
Fifty patients with oesophageal cancer treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy between 2004 and 2008 were retrospectively considered and classified as complete, partial or non-responders (including stable and progressive disease) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The classification of partial and complete responders was confirmed by biopsy. Tumours were delineated on the 18F-FDG pretreatment scan using an adaptive threshold and the automatic fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian (FLAB) methodologies. Several parameters were then extracted: maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUV), tumour longitudinal length (TL) and volume (TV), SUVmean, and total lesion glycolysis (TLG = TV × SUVmean). The correlation between each parameter and response was investigated using Kruskal-Wallis tests, and receiver-operating characteristic methodology was used to assess performance of the parameters to differentiate patients.
Whereas commonly used parameters such as SUV measurements were not significant predictive factors of the response, parameters related to tumour functional spatial extent (TL, TV, TLG) allowed significant differentiation of all three groups of patients, independently of the delineation strategy, and could identify complete and non-responders with sensitivity above 75% and specificity above 85%. A systematic although not statistically significant trend was observed regarding the hierarchy of the delineation methodologies and the parameters considered, with slightly higher predictive value obtained with FLAB over adaptive thresholding, and TLG over TV and TL.
TLG is a promising predictive factor of concomitant radiochemotherapy response with statistically higher predictive value than SUV measurements in advanced oesophageal cancer.
KeywordsOesophageal cancer Response to therapy PET scan Tumour volume Total lesion glycolysis
This work was partly funded by ANR (French National Research Agency) under the contract ANR-08-ETEC-005-01.
Conflicts of interest
- 4.Kelsen DP, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, Mortimer J, Estes NC, Haller DG, et al. Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(24):3719–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Stahl M, Wilke H, Stuschke M, Walz MK, Fink U, Molls M, et al. Clinical response to induction chemotherapy predicts local control and long-term survival in multimodal treatment of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2005;131(1):67–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lee JM, Yang SY, Yang PW, Shun CT, Wu MT, Hsu CH, et al. Polymorphism in epidermal growth factor receptor intron 1 predicts prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer after chemoradiation and surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2011. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 14.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(3):205–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. 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 1999;2(3):159–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Schaefer A, Kremp S, Hellwig D, Rübe C, Kirsch CM, Nestle U. A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(11):1989–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, Cheze-le Rest. Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 25.Levine EA, Farmer MR, Clark P, Mishra G, Ho C, Geisinger KR, et al. Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2006;243(4):472–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Makino T, Miyata H, Yamasaki M, Fujiwara Y, Takiguchi S, Nakajima K, et al. Utility of response evaluation to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery 2010;148(5):908–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Mamede M, Abreu-E-Lima P, Oliva MR, Nosé V, Mamon H, Gerbaudo VH. FDG-PET/CT tumor segmentation-derived indices of metabolic activity to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy and progression-free survival in esophageal cancer: correlation with histopathology results. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30(4):377–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Roedl JB, Harisinghani MG, Colen RR, Fischman AJ, Blake MA, Mathisen DJ, et al. Assessment of treatment response and recurrence in esophageal carcinoma based on tumor length and standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86(4):1131–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Roedl JB, Colen RR, Holalkere NS, Fischman AJ, Choi NC, Blake MA. Adenocarcinomas of the esophagus: response to chemoradiotherapy is associated with decrease of metabolic tumor volume as measured on PET-CT. Comparison to histopathologic and clinical response evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2008;89(3):278–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar