Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 65–73 | Cite as

The prognostic role of FDG PET/CT before combined radio-chemotherapy in anal cancer patients

  • Lucia Leccisotti
  • Stefania ManfridaEmail author
  • Roberto Barone
  • Daria Ripani
  • Luca Tagliaferri
  • Valeria Masiello
  • Vanessa Privitera
  • Maria Antonietta Gambacorta
  • Vittoria Rufini
  • Vincenzo Valentini
  • Alessandro Giordano
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

We assessed the prognostic value of several FDG PET/CT parameters, measured within the primary tumor and the involved lymph nodes, before definitive radio-chemotherapy (RCT) in anal cancer patients.

Methods

Anal cancer patients with positive baseline FDG PET/CT who underwent definitive RCT from May 2011 to February 2018 were retrospectively assessed. Primary tumour (T)-SUVmax, T-SUVpeak, T-SUVmean, T-MTV, T-TLG, whole-body (WB) MTV, and WB-TLG were measured. Kaplan–Meier curves, Cox-regression analysis, and logistic regression machine-learning technique were used to test for associations between clinical data, metabolic parameters, and outcomes as overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), metastatic-free survival (MFS), disease-free survival (DFS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), and colostomy-free survival (CFS).

Results

Fifty-nine patients were included in the study. Median follow-up was 28 months. Higher pre-treatment WB-MTV, T-TLG, and WB-TLG were associated with worse OS (p = 0.025, 0.021, and 0.02, respectively). PET parameters resulted also statistically significant for DSS, DFS, and CFS (p = 0.032, 0.043, 9 × 10−4 for WB-TLG). Cox analysis showed that PET parameters are significant predictors of OS, DSS, DFS, CFS, and LRFS. On multivariate analysis, age, stage, T-SUVpeak, WB-MTV, and T-TLG resulted significantly related to OS. A further stratification for patients with advanced stage (cT3-4 any N or any cT, N + ) showed that MTV and TLG, measured within the primary tumor and the involved nodes, are significantly higher in patients with a worse prognosis. In this subgroup, cut-off values of T- and WB-TLG as well as T- and WB-MTV showed a statistically significant correlation with clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

Pre-treatment metabolic parameters measured within the primary tumor and the involved nodes may represent additional new biomarkers for estimating prognosis in anal cancer patients, especially in advanced stage patients.

Keywords

PET FDG Anal cancer MTV TLG Prognosis Personalized medicine 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Anal Cancer. National Cancer Institute 2018. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/anus.html Accessed 19 Feb 2019.
  2. 2.
    Gambacorta MA, Valentini V, Coco C, et al. Sphincter preservation in four consecutive phase II studies of preoperative chemoradiation: analysis of 247 T3 rectal cancer patients. Tumori. 2007;93:160–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frakulli R, Buwenge M, Cammelli S, et al. Brachytherapy boost after chemoradiation in anal cancer: a systematic review. J Contemp Brachyther. 2018;10:246–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy vs fluorouracil, cisplatin, and radiotherapy for carcinoma of the anal canal: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:1914–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartelink H, Roelofsen F, Eschwege F, et al. Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy and Gastrointestinal Cooperative Groups. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2040–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flam M, John M, Pajak TF, et al. Role of mitomycin in combination with fluorouracil and radiotherapy, and of salvage chemoradiation in the definitive nonsurgical treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal: results of a phase III randomized intergroup study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2527–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gunderson LL, Winter KA, Ajani JA, et al. Long-term update of US GI intergroup RTOG 98–11 phase III trial for anal carcinoma: survival, relapse, and colostomy failure with concurrent chemoradiation involving fluorouracil/mitomycin versus fluorouracil/cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4344–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James RD, Glynne-Jones R, Meadows HM, et al. Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:516–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peiffert D, Tournier-Rangeard L, Gerard JP, et al. Induction chemotherapy and dose intensification of the radiation boost in locally advanced anal canal carcinoma: final analysis of the randomized UNICANCER ACCORD 03 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1941–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Das P, Crane CH, Eng C, Ajani JA. Prognostic factors for squamous cell cancer of the anal canal. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2008;2:10–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin D, Balermpas P, Winkelmann R, Rodel F, Rodel C, Fokas E. Anal squamous cell carcinoma state of the art management and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018;65:11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:852–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bazan JG, Koong AC, Kapp DS, et al. Metabolic tumor volume predicts disease progression and survival in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:27–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gauthe M, Richard-Molard M, Fayard J, Alberini JL, Cacheux W, Lievre A. Prognostic impact of tumour burden assessed by metabolic tumour volume on FDG PET/CT in anal canal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohammadkhani SS, Schmitt V, Behrendt FF, et al. Metabolic tumour volume of anal carcinoma on (18)FDG PET/CT before combined radiochemotherapy is the only independant determinant of recurrence free survival. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1390–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cardenas ML, Spencer CR, Markovina S, et al. Quantitative FDG-PET/CT predicts local recurrence and survival for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017;2:281–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duimering A, Riauka T, Nijjar Y, et al. Prognostic utility of pre- and post-treatment FDG-PET parameters in anal squamous cell carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2019;136:21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tagliaferri L, Manfrida S, Barbaro B, et al. MITHRA - multiparametric MR/CT image adapted brachytherapy (MR/CT-IABT) in anal canal cancer: a feasibility study. J Contemp Brachyther. 2015;7:336–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovacs G, Tagliaferri L, Valentini V. Is an Interventional Oncology Center an advantage in the service of cancer patients or in the education? The Gemelli Hospital and INTERACTS experience. J Contemp Brachyther. 2017;9:497–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kidd EA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Grigsby PW. Anal cancer maximum F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography is correlated with prognosis. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:288–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deantonio L, Milia ME, Cena T, et al. Anal cancer FDG-PET standard uptake value: correlation with tumor characteristics, treatment response and survival. Radiol Med. 2016;121:54–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rusten E, Rekstad BL, Undseth C, et al. Anal cancer chemoradiotherapy outcome prediction using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and clinicopathological factors. Br J Radiol. 2019;92:20181006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saboo SS, Zukotynski K, Shinagare AB, Krajewski KM, Ramaiya N. Anal carcinoma: FDG PET/CT in staging, response evaluation, and follow-up. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38:728–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vercellino L, Montravers F, de Parades V, et al. Impact of FDG PET/CT in the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Day FL, Link E, Ngan S, et al. FDG-PET metabolic response predicts outcomes in anal cancer managed with chemoradiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Myerson RJ, Fleshman JW, Grigsby PW. Tumor response and survival predicted by post-therapy FDG-PET/CT in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:180–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akbari RP, Paty PB, Guillem JG, et al. Oncologic outcomes of salvage surgery for epidermoid carcinoma of the anus initially managed with combined modality therapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1136–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schiller DE, Cummings BJ, Rai S, et al. Outcomes of salvage surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2780–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tagliaferri L, Budrukkar A, Lenkowicz J, et al. ENT COBRA ONTOLOGY: the covariates classification system proposed by the Head & Neck and Skin GEC-ESTRO Working Group for interdisciplinary standardized data collection in head and neck patient cohorts treated with interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy). J Contemp Brachyther. 2018;10:260–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tagliaferri L, Gobitti C, Colloca GF, et al. A new standardized data collection system for interdisciplinary thyroid cancer management: thyroid COBRA. Eur J Intern Med. 2018;53:73–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Leccisotti
    • 1
  • Stefania Manfrida
    • 2
    Email author
  • Roberto Barone
    • 3
  • Daria Ripani
    • 1
    • 4
  • Luca Tagliaferri
    • 2
  • Valeria Masiello
    • 2
  • Vanessa Privitera
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maria Antonietta Gambacorta
    • 2
    • 4
  • Vittoria Rufini
    • 1
    • 4
  • Vincenzo Valentini
    • 2
    • 4
  • Alessandro Giordano
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, UOC di Medicina NucleareFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, UOC di Radioterapia OncologicaFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
  3. 3.Radius S.r.l.-BudrioBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations