Advertisement

Recurrent bladder carcinoma: clinical and prognostic role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT

  • Pierpaolo AlongiEmail author
  • Federico Caobelli
  • Roberta Gentile
  • Alessandro Stefano
  • Giorgio Russo
  • Domenico Albano
  • Sergio Baldari
  • Maria Carla Gilardi
  • Massimo Midiri
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

A small number of studies evaluated the detection rate of lesions from bladder carcinoma (BC) of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the restaging process. However, the prognostic role of FDG PET/CT still remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy, the effect upon treatment decision, and the prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected recurrent BC.

Materials and Methods

Forty-one patients affected by BC underwent FDG PET/CT for restaging purpose. The diagnostic accuracy of visually interpreted FDG PET/CT was assessed compared to histology (n = 8), other diagnostic imaging modalities (contrast-enhanced CT in 38/41 patients and MRI in 15/41) and clinical follow-up (n = 41). Semiquantitative PET values (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUL, MTV, TLG) were calculated using a graph-based method. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by using Kaplan-Meier curves. The risk of progression (hazard ratio, HR) was computed by Cox regression analysis by considering all the available variables.

Results

PET was considered positive in 21 of 41 patients. Of these, recurrent BC was confirmed in 20 (95 %). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT were 87 %, 94 %, 95 %, 85 %, 90 %. AUC was 0.9 (95 %IC 0.8-1). Bayesian positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.5 and 0.13, respectively. FDG PET/CT findings modified the therapeutic approach in 16 patients (modified therapy in 10 PET-positive patients, watch-and-wait in six PET-negative patients). PFS was significantly longer in patients with negative scan vs. those with pathological findings (85 % vs. 24 %, p < 0.05; HR = 12.4; p = 0.001). Moreover, an unremarkable study was associated with a longer OS (88 % vs. 47 % after 2 years and 87 % vs. 25 % after 3 years, respectively, p < 0.05). Standardized uptake value (SUV)max > 6 and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) > 8.5 were recognized as the most accurate thresholds to predict PFS (2-year PFS 62 % for SUVmax < 6 vs. 15 % for SUVmax > 6, p = 0.018; 2-year PFS 66 % for TLG < 8.5 vs. 18 % for TLG > 8.5, p = 0.09).

Conclusion

A very good diagnostic performance for FDG PET/CT was confirmed in patients with suspected recurrent BC. FDG PET/CT allowed for a change in treatment decision in about 40 % of cases and showed an important prognostic value in assessing PFS and OS.

Keywords

Bladder cancer 18 F-FDG-PET/CT Restaging Prognostic role Clinical role 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Financial support

The authors disclosure of any personal or financial support for this multicenter study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ploeg M, Aben KKH, Kiemeney LA. The present and future burden of urinary bladder cancer in the world. World J Urol. 2009;27:289–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:212–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, Groshen S, Feng AC, Boyd S, et al. Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:666–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sternberg CN, Pansadoro V, Calabrò F, Schnetzer S, Giannarelli D, Emiliozzi P, et al. Can patient selection for bladder preservation be based on response to chemotherapy? Cancer. 2003;97:1644–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht MR, Witjes JA, de la Rosette JJ, van der Graaf M. MR imaging of the male pelvis. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1722–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kosuda S, Kison PV, Greenough R, Grossman HB, Wahl RL. Preliminary assessment of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24:615–20.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jadvar H, Quan V, Henderson RW, Conti PS. [F-18]-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET and PET-CT in diagnostic imaging evaluation of locally recurrent and metastatic bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13:42–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stefano A, Vitabile S, Russo G, et al. A graph-based method for PET image segmentation in radiotherapy planning: a pilot study. In: Petrosino A, editor. Image Anal Process, vol. 8157. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 711–20.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tahari AK, Chien D, Azadi JR, Wahl RL. Optimum lean body formulation for correction of standardized uptake value in PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1481–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drieskens O, Oyen R, Van Poppel H, Vankan Y, Flamen P, Mortelmans L. FDG-PET for preoperative staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1412–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu Y-Y, Chen J-H, Liang J-A, Wang H-Y, Lin C-C, Lin W-Y, et al. Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2411–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maurer T, Horn T, Heck M, Gschwend J, Eiber M, Beer A. Current staging procedures in urinary bladder cancer. Diagnostics. 2013;3:315–24. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Öztürk H, Karapolat I. Efficacy of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in restaging muscle-invasive bladder cancer following radical cystectomy. Exp Ther Med. 2015;9:717–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maurer T, Horn T, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Heck MM, et al. Prognostic value of 11C-choline PET/CT and CT for predicting survival of bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy. Urol Int. 2014;93:207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Caobelli F, Alongi P, Evangelista L, Picchio M, Saladini G, Rensi M, et al. Predictive value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in restaging patients affected by ovarian carcinoma: a multicentre study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:404–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alongi P, Picchio M, Zattoni F, Spallino M, Gianolli L, Saladini G, et al. Recurrent renal cell carcinoma: clinical and prognostic value of FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(3):464–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Babjuk M, Burger M, Zigeuner R, Shariat SF, van Rhijn BWG, Compérat E, et al. EAU Guidelines on non–muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2013. Eur. Urol. 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boers-Sonderen MJ, de Geus-Oei L-F, Desar IME, van der Graaf WTA, Oyen WJG, Ottevanger PB, et al. Temsirolimus and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) combination therapy in breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer: phase Ib results and prediction of clinical outcome with FDG-PET/CT. Target Oncol. 2014;9:339–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liao S, Lan X, Cao G, Yuan H, Zhang Y. Prognostic predictive value of total lesion glycolysis from 18F-FDG PET/CT in post-surgical patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:715–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaidi H, El Naqa I. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Apolo AB, Riches J, Schöder H, Akin O, Trout A, Milowsky MI, et al. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3973–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mertens LS, Fioole-Bruining A, Vegt E, Vogel WV, van Rhijn BW, Horenblas S. Impact of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) on management of patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle. BJU Int. 2013;112:729–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goodfellow H, Viney Z, Hughes P, Rankin S, Rottenberg G, Hughes S, et al. Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2014;114:389–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierpaolo Alongi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Federico Caobelli
    • 2
  • Roberta Gentile
    • 3
  • Alessandro Stefano
    • 4
  • Giorgio Russo
    • 4
  • Domenico Albano
    • 5
  • Sergio Baldari
    • 3
  • Maria Carla Gilardi
    • 4
  • Massimo Midiri
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Radiological Sciences, Nuclear Medicine UnitSan Raffaele G. Giglio InstituteCefalùItaly
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineBasel University HospitalBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional ImagesUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly
  4. 4.IBFM-CNRCefalùItaly
  5. 5.DIBIMEF - Sezione di Scienze RadiologicheUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations