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
- 544 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsPancreatic cancer Recurrence Heterogeneity Metabolic tumor volume Total lesion glycolysis
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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