Medical Oncology

, 31:780 | Cite as

Prognostic value of FDG uptake in primary inoperable non-small cell lung cancer

  • An-Na Tong
  • Shao-Rong Han
  • Peng Yan
  • Hai Gong
  • Hui Zhao
  • Hui Yao
  • Yan-Ming WangEmail author
Original Paper


The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to further analyze the possible risk factors contributing to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We retrospectively analyzed fifty patients between June 2007 and June 2010 with NSCLC who underwent positron emission tomography/computed tomography. We examined the correlation of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in FDG-PET of the primary tumor with other possible factors. The FDG uptake in the primary tumor was also compared for the different Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) staging groups and further correlation was analyzed. We divided the patients into two groups by the receiver operating characteristic curve of SUVmax: SUVmax < 5.45 (low-SUV) and ≥ 5.45 (high-SUV). The prognostic value of each parameter for OS and PFS was determined by using univariate and multivariate analysis. There were significant correlations between SUVmax and Tumor length, N stage, UICC stage, histologic differentiation (r = 0.298, 0.855, 0.345, 0.435). The comparison between the low- and high-SUV groups was evaluated. Statistically significant differences were found in the SUVmax of the primary tumors among different UICC staging groups, and the correlation between stages I–II and stages III–IV for OS and PFS was also statistically significant. Univariate analysis showed that performance status (PS-ZPS score), histologic differentiation, UICC stages, and SUVmax of the primary tumor were significantly associated with OS and PFS. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that histologic differentiation and SUVmax of primary tumor might be considered as significant predictive factors for OS and PFS in patients with NSCLC. Our results showed that there was a significant relationship between the SUVmax of the primary tumor and OS and PFS. FDG uptake by the primary tumor may be an independent outcome predictor for patients with NSCLC.


Non-small cell lung cancer FDG PET/CT SUVmax 



This work was supported by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (20080431411).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nuclear Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Dusart M, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:612–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soussan M, Chouahnia K, Maisonobe JA, et al. Prognostic implications of volume-based measurements on FDG PET/CT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:668–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Accorsi R, Adam LE, Werner ME, et al. Optimization of a fully 3D single scatter simulation algorithm for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:2577–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li M, Wu H, Zheng R, et al. Primary tumor PET/CT [18F] FDG uptake is an independent predictive factor for regional lymph node metastasis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer”. Cancer Imaging. 2012;12:566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strauss LG, Conti PS. The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:623–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bisdas S, Spicer K, Rumboldt Z. Whole-tumor perfusion CT parameters and glucose metabolism measurements in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: a pilot study using combined positron-emission tomography/CT imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1376–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganeshan B, Burnand K, Young R, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced texture analysis of the liver: initial assessment in colorectal cancer. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:160–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higashi K, Ito K, Hiramatsu Y, et al. 18F-FDG uptake by primary tumor as a predictor of intratumoral lymphatic vessel invasion and lymph node involvement in non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of a multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:267–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sauter AW, Spira D, Schulze M, et al. Correlation between [18F]FDG PET/CT and volume perfusion CT in primary tumours and mediastinal lymph nodes of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:677–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Higashi K, Ueda Y, Arisaka Y, et al. 18F-FDG uptake as a biologic prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:39–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeong HJ, Min JJ, Park JM, et al. Determination of the prognostic value of [18F] fluorodeox yglucose uptake by using positron emission tomography in patients with non -small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:865–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suzuki A, Xiao L, Hayashi Y, et al. Prognostic significance of baseline positron emission tomography and importance of clinical complete response in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Cancer. 2011;117:4823–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kato H, Nakajima M, Sohda M, et al. The clinical application of 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to predict survival in patients with operable esophageal cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:3196–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hong D, Lunagomez S, Kim EE, et al. Value of baseline positron emission tomography for predicting overall survival in patient with non metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104:1620–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swisher SG, Maish M, Erasmus JJ, et al. Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1152–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konski AA, Cheng JD, Goldberg M, et al. Correlation of molecular response as measured by 18-FDG positron emission tomography with outcome after chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:358–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishihara R, Yamamoto S, Iishi H, et al. Predicting the effects of chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus by induction chemotherapy response assessed by positron emission tomography: toward PET-response-guided selection of chemoradiotherapy or esophagectomy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17:225–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yasuda T, Higuchi I, Yano M, et al. The impact of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography positive lymph nodes on postoperative recurrence and survival in resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:652–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wieder HA, Beer AJ, Lordick F, et al. Comparison of changes in tumor metabolic activity and tumor size during chemotherapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:2029–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival innon-sma ll cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IAS LC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Higashi K, Ueda Y, Arisaka Y, et al. 18F-FDG uptake as a biologic prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:39–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miles KA, Williams RE. Warburg revisited: imaging tumour blood flow and metabolism. Cancer Imaging. 2008;8:81–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gillies RJ, Robey I, Gatenby RA. Causes and consequences of increased glucose metabolism of cancers. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(Suppl 2):24S–42S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vaupel P, Harrison L. Tumor hypoxia: causative factors, compensatory mechanisms, and cellular response. Oncologist. 2004;9(Suppl 5):4–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vesselle H, Schmidt RA, Pugsley JM, et al. Lung cancer proliferation correlates with [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:3837–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, et al. Biologic correlates of 18fluorode oxy glucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:379–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berghmans T, Paesmans M, Sculier JP. Prognostic factors in stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a review of conventional, metabolic and new biological variables. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2011;3:127–38.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoang JK, Hoagland LF, Coleman RE, et al. Prognostic value of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1459–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kieninger AN, Welsh R, Bendick PJ, et al. Positron-emission tomography as a prognostic tool for early—stage lung cancer. Am J Surg. 2006;191:433–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • An-Na Tong
    • 1
  • Shao-Rong Han
    • 1
  • Peng Yan
    • 2
  • Hai Gong
    • 1
  • Hui Zhao
    • 1
  • Hui Yao
    • 1
  • Yan-Ming Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyJinan Military General HospitalJinanChina
  2. 2.Department of OncologyJinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong UniversityJinanChina

Personalised recommendations