Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does high [18F]FDG uptake always mean poor prognosis? Colon cancer with high-level microsatellite instability is associated with high [18F]FDG uptake on PET/CT

  • Oncology
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

High-level microsatellite instability (MSI-high) is generally associated with higher F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) uptake than stable microsatellite (MSI-stable) tumors. However, MSI-high tumors have better prognosis, which is in contrast with general understanding that high [18F]FDG uptake correlates with poor prognosis. This study evaluated metastasis incidence with MSI status and [18F]FDG uptake.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 108 right-side colon cancer patients who underwent preoperative [18F]FDG PET/CT and postoperative MSI evaluations using a standard polymerase chain reaction at five Bethesda guidelines panel loci. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax), SUVmax tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) of the primary tumor were measured using SUV 2.5 cut-off threshold. Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was performed for continuous variables, and χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was performed for categorical variables (p value of  < 0.05 for statistical significance). Medical records were reviewed for metastasis incidence.

Results

Our study population had 66 MSI-stable and 42 MSI-high tumors. [18F]FDG uptake was higher in MSI-high tumors than MSI-stable tumors (TLR, median (Q1, Q3): 7.95 (6.06, 10.54) vs. 6.08 (4.09, 8.82), p = 0.021). Multivariable subgroup analysis demonstrated that higher [18F]FDG uptake was associated with higher risks of distant metastasis in MSI-stable tumors (SUVmax: p = 0.025, MTV: p = 0.008, TLG: p = 0.019) but not in MSI-high tumors.

Conclusion

MSI-high colon cancer is associated with high [18F]FDG uptake, but unlike MSI-stable tumors, the degree of [18F]FDG uptake does not correlate with the rate of distant metastasis.

Clinical relevance statement

MSI status should be considered during PET/CT assessment of colon cancer patients, as the degree of [18F]FDG uptake might not reflect metastatic potential in MSI-high tumors.

Key Points

• High-level microsatellite instability (MSI-high) tumor is a prognostic factor for distant metastasis.

• MSI-high colon cancers had a tendency of demonstrating higher [18F]FDG uptake compared to MSI-stable tumors.

• Although higher [18F]FDG uptake is known to represent higher risks of distant metastasis, the degree of [18F]FDG uptake in MSI-high tumors did not correlate with the rate at which distant metastasis occurred.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

[18F]FDG:

F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose

AUC:

Area under the curve

CIs:

Confidence intervals

HIF-1:

Hypoxia-induced factor-1

LVI:

Lymphovascular invasion

MSI-high:

High-level microsatellite instability

MTV:

Metabolic tumor volume

ORs:

Odds ratios

PET/CT:

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

Sen:

Sensitivity

SLR:

Spleen-to-liver ratio

Spe:

Specificity

SUVmax:

Maximum standard uptake value

SUVmean:

Mean standardized uptake value

TLG:

Total lesion glycolysis

TLR:

Tumor-to-liver ratio

TNM staging:

Tumor node and metastasis staging

References

  1. Ellegren H (2004) Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nat Rev Genet 5:435–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nojadeh JN, Behrouz Sharif S, Sakhinia E (2018) Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. EXCLI J 17:159–168

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cottrell S, Bicknell D, Kaklamanis L, Bodmer WF (1992) Molecular analysis of APC mutations in familial adenomatous polyposis and sporadic colon carcinomas. Lancet 340:626–630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peltomaki P (2003) Role of DNA mismatch repair defects in the pathogenesis of human cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:1174–1179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS (2005) Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 23:609–618

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Briggs RH, Chowdhury FU, Lodge JPA, Scarsbrook AF (2011) Clinical impact of FDG PET-CT in patients with potentially operable metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Radiol 66:1167–1174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang M, Yang J, Jiang H, Jiang H, Wang Z (2021) Correlation between glucose metabolism parameters derived from FDG and tumor TNM stages and metastasis-associated proteins in colorectal carcinoma patients. BMC Cancer 21:258

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim SH, Song B-I, Kim BW et al (2019) Predictive value of [18F]FDG PET/CT for lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer. Sci Rep 9:4979

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Li D, Wang Y, Liu W et al (2021) The correlation between (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging SUVmax of preoperative colon cancer primary lesions and clinicopathological factors. J Oncol 2021:4312296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kido H, Kato S, Funahashi K et al (2021) The metabolic parameters based on volume in PET/CT are associated with clinicopathological N stage of colorectal cancer and can predict prognosis. EJNMMI Res 11:87

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaymak ZA, Karahan N, Erdoğan M, Erdemoğlu E, Zihni İ, Şengül SS (2021) Correlation of (18)F-FDG/PET SUV(max), SUV(mean), MTV, and TLG with HIF-1α in patients with colorectal cancer. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 30:93–100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lovinfosse P, Koopmansch B, Lambert F et al (2016) (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging in rectal cancer: relationship with the RAS mutational status. Br J Radiol 89:20160212–20160212

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chung HW, Lee SY, Han HS et al (2013) Gastric cancers with microsatellite instability exhibit high fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography. Gastric Cancer 16:185–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu H, Ye Z, Yang T et al (2021) Predictive value of metabolic parameters derived from (18)F-FDG PET/CT for microsatellite instability in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Front Immunol 12:724464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Buckowitz A, Knaebel HP, Benner A et al (2005) Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer is associated with local lymphocyte infiltration and low frequency of distant metastases. Br J Cancer 92:1746–1753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kang S, Na Y, Joung SY, Lee SI, Oh SC, Min BW (2018) The significance of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer after controlling for clinicopathological factors. Medicine (Baltimore) 97

  17. Elsaleh H, Cserni G, Iacopetta B (2002) Extent of nodal involvement in stage III colorectal carcinoma: relationship to clinicopathologic variables and genetic alterations. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1218–1222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR et al (1998) A national cancer institute workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 58:5248–5257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR et al (1997) A national cancer institute workshop on hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1758–1762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alam TF, Rahman MS, Bari W (2022) On estimation for accelerated failure time models with small or rare event survival data. BMC Med Res Methodol 22:169

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Heinze G, Schemper M (2002) A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Stat Med 21:2409–2419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Suzuki H, Nishio M, Nakanishi H et al (2016) Impact of total lesion glycolysis measured by 18F-FDG-PET/CT on overall survival and distant metastasis in hypopharyngeal cancer. Oncol Lett 12:1493–1500

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Park SY, Yoon JK, Park KJ, Lee SJ (2015) Prediction of occult lymph node metastasis using volume-based PET parameters in small-sized peripheral non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Imaging 15:21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang L, Liu F, Wu Y et al (2020) Predictive value of occult metastasis and survival significance of metabolic tumor volume determined by PET-CT in cT1-2N0 squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Front Oncol 10:542530

  25. Jung J-h, Kim C-Y, Son SH et al (2015) Preoperative prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis using primary tumor SUVmax on 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma. PLoS ONE 10:e0144152

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Narayanan S, Kawaguchi T, Peng X et al (2019) Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and macrophages improve survival in microsatellite unstable colorectal cancer. Sci Rep 9:13455

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Klingbiel D, Saridaki Z, Roth AD, Bosman FT, Delorenzi M, Tejpar S (2015) Prognosis of stage II and III colon cancer treated with adjuvant 5-fluorouracil or FOLFIRI in relation to microsatellite status: results of the PETACC-3 trial†. Ann Oncol 26:126–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Phillips SM, Banerjea A, Feakins R, Li SR, Bustin SA, Dorudi S (2004) Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability are activated and cytotoxic. Br J Surg 91:469–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ward R, Meagher A, Tomlinson I et al (2001) Microsatellite instability and the clinicopathological features of sporadic colorectal cancer. Gut 48:821–829

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lynch HT, Smyrk TC, Watson P et al (1993) Genetics, natural history, tumor spectrum, and pathology of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: an updated review. Gastroenterology 104:1535–1549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Boland CR, Goel A (2010) Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 138(2073–2087):e2073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sanz-Pamplona R, Melas M, Maoz A et al (2020) Lymphocytic infiltration in stage II microsatellite stable colorectal tumors: a retrospective prognosis biomarker analysis. PLoS Med 17:e1003292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Murakami W, Tozaki M, Sasaki M et al (2020) Correlation between (18)F-FDG uptake on PET/MRI and the level of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 123:108773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhou J, Zou S, Kuang D, Yan J, Zhao J, Zhu X (2021) A novel approach using FDG-PET/CT-based radiomics to assess tumor immune phenotypes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol 11:769272

  35. Sasada S, Kimura Y, Emi A et al (2020) Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte score based on FDG PET/CT for predicting the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 40:3395–3400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Prigent K, Lasnon C, Ezine E et al (2021) Assessing immune organs on (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging for therapy monitoring of immune checkpoint inhibitors: inter-observer variability, prognostic value and evolution during the treatment course of melanoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:2573–2585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schwenck J, Schorg B, Fiz F et al (2020) Cancer immunotherapy is accompanied by distinct metabolic patterns in primary and secondary lymphoid organs observed by non-invasive in vivo (18)F-FDG-PET. Theranostics 10:925–937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Seban RD, Assie JB, Giroux-Leprieur E et al (2021) Prognostic value of inflammatory response biomarkers using peripheral blood and [18F]-FDG PET/CT in advanced NSCLC patients treated with first-line chemo- or immunotherapy. Lung Cancer 159:45–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Seban RD, Nemer JS, Marabelle A et al (2019) Prognostic and theranostic 18F-FDG PET biomarkers for anti-PD1 immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma: association with outcome and transcriptomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2298–2310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Seban RD, Synn S, Muneer I, Champion L, Schwartz LH, Dercle L (2021) Spleen glucose metabolism on [18F]-FDG PET/CT for cancer drug discovery and development cannot be overlooked. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 21:944–952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wong A, Callahan J, Keyaerts M et al (2020) (18)F-FDG PET/CT based spleen to liver ratio associates with clinical outcome to ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer Imaging 20:36

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2016R1D1A1B01014677).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Honsoul Kim and Arthur Cho contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea

    Jongtae Cha, Won Jun Kang & Arthur Cho

  2. Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Samsung Life Building (B, 7th floor) 115 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06355, Republic of Korea

    Honsoul Kim

  3. Department of Health Science and Technology, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Honsoul Kim

  4. Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Hye Jung Shin & Myeongjee Lee

  5. Department of Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Seowoong Jun

Authors
  1. Jongtae Cha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Honsoul Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hye Jung Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Myeongjee Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seowoong Jun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Won Jun Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arthur Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Honsoul Kim or Arthur Cho.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Arthur Cho, MD, PhD.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Statistics and biometry

Two of the authors have significant statistical expertise: Hye Jung Shin, Myeongjee Lee.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Severance Hospital (IRB No. 4–2021-1559), and the requirement for informed consent was waived due to its retrospective nature.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported.

Methodology

• retrospective

• cross-sectional study

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cha, J., Kim, H., Shin, H.J. et al. Does high [18F]FDG uptake always mean poor prognosis? Colon cancer with high-level microsatellite instability is associated with high [18F]FDG uptake on PET/CT. Eur Radiol 33, 7450–7460 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09832-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09832-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation