Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 699–708 | Cite as

Predicting complete response to neoadjuvant CRT for distal rectal cancer using sequential PET/CT imaging

  • R. O. PerezEmail author
  • A. Habr-Gama
  • G. P. São Julião
  • P. B. Lynn
  • C. Sabbagh
  • I. Proscurshim
  • F. G. Campos
  • J. Gama-Rodrigues
  • S. C. Nahas
  • C. A. Buchpiguel
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Molecular imaging using positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) may add relevant incremental diagnostic information to standard structural cross-sectional imaging. Such information may allow identification of patients with rectal cancer that are more likely to develop complete tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). The objective of this report was to identify PET/CT features that are associated with a complete response after CRT.

Methods

99 cT2-4N0-2M0 distal rectal cancer patients (≤7 cm from anal verge) were included in this prospective single center trial (NCT 00254683). Patients underwent baseline PET/CT followed by 54 Gy and 5-fluorouracil-based neoadjuvant CRT. After completion of therapy, patients underwent 6- and 12-week PET/CT. Clinical assessment of tumor response was performed at 12 weeks and was blinded to radiological information. Patients were treated according to clinical assessment.

Results

There were seven patients with a complete pathological response (pCR) and 16 with a complete clinical response (cCR) (23 complete responders). Comparison of pCR exclusively and non-pCR revealed that only baseline primary tumor standard uptake value (SUV) was a significant predictor of response. Comparison of complete responders (pCR or cCR) and non-complete responders showed that depth of rectal wall uptake at baseline PET/CT (p = 0.002) and variation between baseline and 12-week maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of primary tumor (p = 0.001) were independent predictors for complete response at multivariate analysis. A decrease >67 % between baseline and 6-week or 76 % between baseline and 12-week SUVmax were associated with complete response (pCR or cCR; p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks, may provide information regarding patients with a higher likelihood of developing complete tumor regression following neoadjuvant CRT.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Neoadjuvant chemoradiation PET/CT Response assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Brazilian Research Funding agencies Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa (CNPQ) Research Grant #483752/2006-1 and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) Research Grant #07/51069-01.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W et al (2004) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351:1731–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanghera P, Wong DW, McConkey CC, Geh JI, Hartley A (2008) Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: an updated analysis of factors affecting pathological response. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 20:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V et al (2010) Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 11:835–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W et al (2004) Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg 240:711–717 (discussion 717–718)PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith FM, Waldron D, Winter DC (2010) Rectum-conserving surgery in the era of chemoradiotherapy. Br J Surg 97:1752–1764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Wynn G, Marks J, Kessler H, Gama-Rodrigues J (2010) Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: characterization of clinical and endoscopic findings for standardization. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1692–1698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Gama-Rodrigues J et al (2011) Accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and clinical assessment in the detection of complete rectal tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: long-term results of a prospective trial (National Clinical Trial 00254683). Cancer 118:3501–3511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP et al (2012) Optimal timing for assessment of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer: do all patients benefit from waiting longer than 6 weeks? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:1159–1165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Habr-Gama A, Perez R, Proscurshim I, Gama-Rodrigues J (2010) Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for distal rectal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 19:829–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lambregts DM, Maas M, Bakers FC et al (2011) Long-term follow-up features on rectal MRI during a wait-and-see approach after a clinical complete response in patients with rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1521–1528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lambregts DM, Vandecaveye V, Barbaro B et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2224–2231PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ichiya Y, Kuwabara Y, Otsuka M et al (1991) Assessment of response to cancer therapy using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med 32:1655–1660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calvo FA, Domper M, Matute R et al (2004) 18F-FDG positron emission tomography staging and restaging in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:528–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martoni AA, Di Fabio F, Pinto C et al (2011) Prospective study on the FDG–PET/CT predictive and prognostic values in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and radical surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Oncol 22:650–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Konski A, Li T, Sigurdson E et al (2009) Use of molecular imaging to predict clinical outcome in patients with rectal cancer after preoperative chemotherapy and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:55–59PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J (2004) Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology 232:773–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davey K, Heriot AG, Mackay J et al (2008) The impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography on the staging and management of primary rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 51:997–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vriens D, de Geus-Oei LF, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ (2009) Tailoring therapy in colorectal cancer by PET–CT. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 53:224–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amthauer H, Denecke T, Rau B et al (2004) Response prediction by FDG-PET after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and combined regional hyperthermia of rectal cancer: correlation with endorectal ultrasound and histopathology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:811–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guillem JG, Moore HG, Akhurst T et al (2004) Sequential preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography assessment of response to preoperative chemoradiation: a means for determining longterm outcomes of rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 199:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melton GB, Lavely WC, Jacene HA et al (2007) Efficacy of preoperative combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography for assessing primary rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy. J Gastrointest Surg 11:961–969 (discussion 969)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenberg R, Herrmann K, Gertler R et al (2009) The predictive value of metabolic response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer measured by PET/CT. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:191–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leibold T, Akhurst TJ, Chessin DB et al (2011) Evaluation of 18F-FDG-PET for early detection of suboptimal response of rectal cancer to preoperative chemoradiotherapy: a prospective analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2783–2789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldberg N, Kundel Y, Purim O et al (2012) Early prediction of histopathological response of rectal tumors after one week of preoperative radiochemotherapy using 18 F-FDG PET–CT imaging. A prospective clinical study. Radiat Oncol 7:124PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lambrecht M, Deroose C, Roels S et al (2010) The use of FDG-PET/CT and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for response prediction before, during and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 49:956–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Capirci C, Rubello D, Pasini F et al (2009) The role of dual-time combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the staging and restaging workup of locally advanced rectal cancer, treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy and radical surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:1461–1469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cascini GL, Avallone A, Delrio P et al (2006) 18F-FDG PET is an early predictor of pathologic tumor response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Nucl Med 47:1241–1248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Proscurshim I et al (2008) Interval between surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: does delayed surgery have an impact on outcome? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1181–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garcia-Aguilar J, Chen Z, Smith DD et al (2011) Identification of a biomarker profile associated with resistance to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 254:486–492 (discussion 492–483)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. O. Perez
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  • A. Habr-Gama
    • 1
    • 6
  • G. P. São Julião
    • 1
  • P. B. Lynn
    • 1
  • C. Sabbagh
    • 1
  • I. Proscurshim
    • 1
  • F. G. Campos
    • 2
  • J. Gama-Rodrigues
    • 1
    • 6
  • S. C. Nahas
    • 2
  • C. A. Buchpiguel
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Angelita and Joaquim Gama InstituteSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Colorectal Surgery Division, Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of São Paulo School of MedicineSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of RadiologyUniversity of São Paulo School of MedicineSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineHospital do CoraçãoSão PauloBrazil
  5. 5.Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research - São Paulo BranchSão PauloBrazil
  6. 6.University of São Paulo School of MedicineSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations