Advertisement

Heterogeneity index evaluated by slope of linear regression on 18F-FDG PET/CT as a prognostic marker for predicting tumor recurrence in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

  • Yong-il Kim
  • Yong Joong Kim
  • Jin Chul Paeng
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
  • Dong Soo Lee
  • June-Key Chung
  • Keon Wook KangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has been investigated as a method to predict pancreatic cancer recurrence after pancreatic surgery. We evaluated the recently introduced heterogeneity indices of 18F-FDG PET/CT used for predicting pancreatic cancer recurrence after surgery and compared them with current clinicopathologic and 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters.

Methods

A total of 93 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients (M:F = 60:33, mean age = 64.2 ± 9.1 years) who underwent preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT following pancreatic surgery were retrospectively enrolled. The standardized uptake values (SUVs) and tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) were measured on each 18F-FDG PET/CT, as metabolic parameters. Metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were examined as volumetric parameters. The coefficient of variance (heterogeneity index-1; SUVmean divided by the standard deviation) and linear regression slopes (heterogeneity index-2) of the MTV, according to SUV thresholds of 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0, were evaluated as heterogeneity indices. Predictive values of clinicopathologic and 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters and heterogeneity indices were compared in terms of pancreatic cancer recurrence.

Results

Seventy patients (75.3%) showed recurrence after pancreatic cancer surgery (mean recurrence = 9.4 ± 8.4 months). Comparing the recurrence and no recurrence patients, all of the 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters and heterogeneity indices demonstrated significant differences. In univariate Cox-regression analyses, MTV (P = 0.013), TLG (P = 0.007), and heterogeneity index-2 (P = 0.027) were significant. Among the clinicopathologic parameters, CA19–9 (P = 0.025) and venous invasion (P = 0.002) were selected as significant parameters. In multivariate Cox-regression analyses, MTV (P = 0.005), TLG (P = 0.004), and heterogeneity index-2 (P = 0.016) with venous invasion (P < 0.001, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively) demonstrated significant results.

Conclusions

The heterogeneity index obtained using the linear regression slope, could be an effective predictor of pancreatic cancer recurrence after pancreatic cancer surgery, in addition to 18F-FDG PET/CT volumetric parameters and clinicopathologic parameters.

Keywords

Pancreatic cancer Recurrence Heterogeneity Metabolic tumor volume Total lesion glycolysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of education (2009-0093820), and by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI14C1072), and by a grant of the Research Driven Hospital R&D project, funded by the CHA Bundang Medical Center (grant number: BDCHA R&D 2017-018).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conlon KC, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF. Long-term survival after curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clinicopathologic analysis of 5-year survivors. Ann Surg. 1996;223:273–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osayi SN, Bloomston M, Schmidt CM, Ellison EC, Muscarella P. Biomarkers as predictors of recurrence following curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:468959.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang Z, Chen J-Q, Liu J-L, Qin X-G, Huang Y. FDG-PET in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:4808–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dibble EH, Karantanis D, Mercier G, Peller PJ, Kachnic LA, Subramaniam RM. PET/CT of cancer patients: part 1, pancreatic neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:952–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamamoto T, Sugiura T, Mizuno T, Okamura Y, Aramaki T, Endo M, et al. Preoperative FDG-PET predicts early recurrence and a poor prognosis after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:677–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang CM, Lee SH, Hwang HK, Yun M, Lee WJ. Preoperative volume-based PET parameter, MTV2. 5, as a potential surrogate marker for tumor biology and recurrence in resected pancreatic cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e2595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parlak C, Topkan E, Onal C, Reyhan M, Selek U. Prognostic value of gross tumor volume delineated by FDG-PET-CT based radiotherapy treatment planning in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:883–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asselin M-C, O’Connor JP, Boellaard R, Thacker NA, Jackson A. Quantifying heterogeneity in human tumours using MRI and PET. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:447–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang B, Chan T, Kwong DL-W, Chan WKS, Khong P-L. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: investigation of intratumoral heterogeneity with FDG PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:169–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung HH, Kang SY, Ha S, Kim J-W, Park N-H, Song YS, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in early stage uterine cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;27:e15.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim TH, Yoon J-K, Kang DK, Lee SJ, Jung YS, Yim H, et al. Correlation between F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography metabolic parameters and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-derived perfusion data in patients with invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3866–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwon SH, Yoon JK, An YS, Shin YS, Kim CH, Lee DH, et al. Prognostic significance of the intratumoral heterogeneity of 18F-FDG uptake in oral cavity cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:702–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee M, Lee H, Cheon GJ, Kim HS, Chung HH, Kim J-W, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:16–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lucignani G. SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:715–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chicklore S, Goh V, Siddique M, Roy A, Marsden PK, Cook GJ. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:133–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallières M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Groheux D, et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi–cancer site patient cohort. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:38–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook GJ, O’Brien ME, Siddique M, Chicklore S, Loi HY, Sharma B, et al. Non–small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: heterogeneity of 18F-FDG uptake at PET—association with treatment response and prognosis. Radiology. 2015;276:883–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyun SH, Kim HS, Choi SH, Choi DW, Lee JK, Lee KH, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of 18F-FDG uptake predicts survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1461–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang S-L, Cao S, Sun Y-N, Wu R, Chi F, Tang M-Y, et al. Standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts prognosis in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:3117–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun Y, Duan Q, Wang S, Yuecan ZW. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using 18F-FDG PET/CT and CA19-9 with SUVmax association to clinical characteristics. J BUON. 2015;20:452–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chirindel A, Alluri KC, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL, Pawlik TM, Herman JM, et al. Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT–derived parameters in pancreatic adenocarcinoma at initial PET/CT staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:1093–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choi HJ, Kang CM, Jo K, Lee WJ, Lee J-H, Ryu YH, et al. Prognostic significance of standardized uptake value on preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:841–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Y-i K, Paeng JC, Cheon GJ, Suh K-S, Lee DS, Chung J-K, et al. Prediction of posttransplantation recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma using metabolic and volumetric indices of 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1045–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee JW, Kang CM, Choi HJ, Lee WJ, Song SY, Lee J-H, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis on preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:898–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu H-X, Chen T, Wang W-Q, Wu C-T, Liu C, Long J, et al. Metabolic tumour burden assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT associated with serum CA19-9 predicts pancreatic cancer outcome after resection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1093–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shimada K, Sakamoto Y, Sano T, Kosuge T. Prognostic factors after distal pancreatectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail. Surgery. 2006;139:288–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nakagohri T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Inoue K, Takahashi S. Survival benefits of portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2003;186:149–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ishikawa O, Ohigashi H, Imaoka S, Furukawa H, Sasaki Y, Fujita M, et al. Preoperative indications for extended pancreatectomy for locally advanced pancreas cancer involving the portal vein. Ann Surg. 1992;215:231–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical CenterCHA UniversitySeongnamSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Veterans Health Service Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical SciencesSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations