Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Correlation between KRAS mutation and 18F-FDG uptake in stage IV colorectal cancer

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the correlation between KRAS mutation, 18F-FDG uptake, and metastatic pattern in advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

Methods

Medical records of stage IV CRC patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging and KRAS mutation analysis were selected. On PET scans, a volume of interest (VOI) was drawn on the primary lesion. 18F-FDG indices (SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, TLG) of the primary lesions were obtained and correlated with KRAS mutation of the primary lesion. Also, metastatic sites were recorded. Association between metastatic pattern and KRAS expression and FDG indices were analyzed.

Results

KRAS mutation was positive in 40 (43%) patients. Evaluation of FDG indices showed that higher SUVmax (14.0 vs. 11.2, p = 0.004), higher SUVmean (5.3 vs. 4.7, p = 0.005), and higher TLG (301.4 vs. 205.5, p = 0.023) were predictive of KRAS mutation compared to wild-type (WT) KRAS. Lung metastasis was more frequently involved in patients with KRAS mutation (50.0% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.006), and liver metastasis was more frequently involved in patients with WT KRAS (81.1% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis showed that  primary tumor location (OR 3.92, p = 0.07) and KRAS mutation (OR 2.45, p = 0.09) were significant factors in lung metastasis model.

Conclusion

KRAS mutation patients had more frequent lung metastasis and had higher 18F-FDG uptake compared to WT KRAS in stage IV CRC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. (2015) Global cancer statistics 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):87–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, et al. (2007) Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357(20):2040–2048

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ku GY, Haaland BA, de Lima LopesGJr (2012) Cetuximab in the first-line treatment of K-ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: the choice and schedule of fluoropyrimidine matters. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 70(2):231–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lievre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, et al. (2008) KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 26(3):374–379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. (2008) K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 359(17):1757–1765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yun J, Rago C, Cheong I, et al. (2009) Glucose deprivation contributes to the development of KRAS pathway mutations in tumor cells. Science 325(5947):1555–1559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kawada K, Nakamoto Y, Kawada M, et al. (2012) Relationship between 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation and KRAS/BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18(6):1696–1703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen SW, Chiang HC, Chen WT, et al. (2014) Correlation between PET/CT parameters and KRAS expression in colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 39(8):685–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Krikelis D, Skoura E, Kotoula V, et al. (2014) Lack of association between KRAS mutations and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Caucasian metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Anticancer Res 34(5):2571–2579

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Culverwell AD, Chowdhury FU, Scarsbrook AF (2012) Optimizing the role of FDG PET-CT for potentially operable metastatic colorectal cancer. Abdom Imaging 37(6):1021–1031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Cutsem E, Nordlinger B, Cervantes A, et al. (2010) Advanced colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for treatment. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v93–v97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257(3):674–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Network NCC Clinical practice Guidelines in Oncology, Colon cancer, version 3.2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf Accessed August 23, 2014

  14. Kim MJ, Lee HS, Kim JH, et al. (2012) Different metastatic pattern according to the KRAS mutational status and site-specific discordance of KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 12:347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cejas P, Lopez-Gomez M, Aguayo C, et al. (2009) KRAS mutations in primary colorectal cancer tumors and related metastases: a potential role in prediction of lung metastasis. PLoS ONE 4(12):e8199

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Iwamoto M, Kawada K, Nakamoto Y, et al. (2014) Regulation of 18F-FDG accumulation in colorectal cancer cells with mutated KRAS. J Nucl Med 55(12):2038–2044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hee Sung Hwang.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research was supported by the Grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (A110853).

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 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

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study. Informed consent was waived.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cho, A., Jo, K., Hwang, S.H. et al. Correlation between KRAS mutation and 18F-FDG uptake in stage IV colorectal cancer. Abdom Radiol 42, 1621–1626 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1054-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1054-2

Keywords

Navigation