Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of 18FDG-PET in Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation on the Survival Outcome Stratification

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

We studied the predictive value of [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) for assessing disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer.

Materials and methods

A literature search (PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane) was performed to identify full papers with 18FDG-PET and survival data, using indexing terms and free text words. Studies with >10 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, presenting sequential or at least one post-adjuvant treatment 18FDG-PET data and Kaplan–Meier survival curves with >6 months median follow-up period were included. We performed a meta-analysis for DFS and OS using the hazard ratio (HRs) as outcome measure. Sources of heterogeneity study were also explored.

Results

We identified 26 eligible studies including a total of 1,544 patients (average age 62 years, 82 % males). The TNM distribution was as follows: stage I 7 %, II 24 %, III 53 % and IV 15 %. The pooled HRs for complete metabolic response versus no response were 0.51 for OS (95 % CI, 0.4–0.64; P < 0.00001) and 0.47 for DFS (95 % CI, 0.38–0.57; P < 0.00001), respectively. No statistical heterogeneity was present. To explore sources of clinical heterogeneity, we also realised subgroup and regression analyses. Taken into account the moderate correlation between OS and DFS (ρ = 0.54), we used joint bivariate random regression model. These analyses did not show a statistically significant impact of study characteristics and PET modalities on the pooled outcome estimates.

Conclusion

Despite methodological and clinical heterogeneity, metabolic response on 18FDG-PET is a significant predictor of long-term survival data.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers BM, Foo K, Zalcberg J, Simes J. Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:226–234.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BP, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074–2084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Krause BJ, Herrmann K, Wieder H, Zum Buschenfelde CM. 18f-FDG PET and 18 F-FDG PET/CT for assessing response to therapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2009;50:89S–96S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vallbohmer D, Holscher AH, DeMeester S, DeMeester T, Salo J, Peters J, et al. A multicenter study of survival after neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemotherapy and esophagectomy for ypT0N0M0R0 esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2010;252:744–749.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu A, Lee D, Shim H. Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging in cancer detection and therapy response. Semin Oncol 2011;38:55–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;354:496–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong R, Walker-Dilks C, Raifu A. Evidence-based guideline recommendations on the use of positron emission tomography imaging in oesophageal cancer. Clin. Oncol. 2012;24:86–104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Smyth EC, Shah MA. Role of (1)F 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in upper gastrointestinal malignancies. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:5059–5074.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chua S, Dickson J, Groves AM. PET imaging for prediction of response to therapy and outcome in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1591–1594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwee RM. Prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal cancer with use of 18 F FDG PET: a systematic review. Radiology 2010;254:707–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Esteves FP, Schuster DM, Halkar RK. Gastrointestinal tract malignancies and positron emission tomography: an overview. Semin Nucl Med 2006;36:169–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Suttie SA, Welch AE, Park KG. Positron emission tomography for monitoring response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:1019–1029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wong WL, Chambers RJ. Role of pet/pet ct in the staging and restaging of thoracic oesophageal cancer and gastro-oesophageal cancer: A literature review. Abdom Imaging 2008;33:183–190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malik V, Lucey JA, Duffy GJ, Wilson L, McNamara L, Keogan M, et al. Early repeated 18 F-FDG PET scans during neoadjuvant chemoradiation fail to predict histopathologic response or survival benefit in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. J Nucl Med 2010;51:1863–1869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mamede M, Abreu ELP, Oliva MR, Nose V, Mamon H, Gerbaudo VH. FDG-pet/ct tumor segmentation-derived indices of metabolic activity to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy and progression-free survival in esophageal cancer: Correlation with histopathology results. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30:377–388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Monjazeb AM, Riedlinger G, Aklilu M, Geisinger KR, Mishra G, Isom S, et al. Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer staged with [(1)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET): can postchemoradiotherapy FDG-PET predict the utility of resection? J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4714–4721.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Port JL, Lee PC, Korst RJ, Liss Y, Meherally D, Christos P, et al. Positron emission tomographic scanning predicts survival after induction chemotherapy for esophageal carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:393–400; discussion 400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roedl JB, Halpern EF, Colen RR, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Blake MA. Metabolic tumor width parameters as determined on PET/CT predict disease-free survival and treatment response in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11:54–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roedl JB, Harisinghani MG, Colen RR, Fischman AJ, Blake MA, Mathisen DJ, et al. Assessment of treatment response and recurrence in esophageal carcinoma based on tumor length and standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:1131–1138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Korst RJ, Kansler AL, Port JL, Lee PC, Kerem Y, Altorki NK. Downstaging of t or n predicts long-term survival after preoperative chemotherapy and radical resection for esophageal carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:480–485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Borenstein M, Higgins JP. Meta-analysis and subgroups. Prev Sci 2013

  24. Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Thompson JR. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Riley RD, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Thompson JR. An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes. Stat Med 2007;26:78–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Abdelsalam M, Bazarbashi S, Abouzied M, Amin T, Soudy H, Rahal M, et al. Whole body 18 F-FDG PET predicts progression free and overall survival in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: results of a prospective trial. Hematol. Oncolog. Stem Cell Ther. 2010;3:179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brucher BL, Weber W, Bauer M, Fink U, Avril N, Stein HJ, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg 2001;233:300–309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D, Ginsberg R, Bains MS, Gonen M, et al. Whole body 18fdg-pet and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:428–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Duong CP, Demitriou H, Weih L, Thompson A, Williams D, Thomas RJ, et al. Significant clinical impact and prognostic stratification provided by FDG-PET in the staging of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:759–769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A, Cambier JP, Haustermans K, Bormans G, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol 2002;13:361–368.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Higuchi I, Yasuda T, Yano M, Doki Y, Miyata H, Tatsumi M, et al. Lack of fludeoxyglucose F 18 uptake in posttreatment positron emission tomography as a significant predictor of survival after subsequent surgery in multimodality treatment for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136:205–212, 212 e201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ilson DH, Minsky BD, Ku GY, Rusch V, Rizk N, Shah M, et al. Phase 2 trial of induction and concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly irinotecan and cisplatin followed by surgery for esophageal cancer. Cancer 2011

  33. Ishihara R, Yamamoto S, Iishi H, Nagai K, Matui F, Kawada N, 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. 2011:1–8.

  34. Javeri H, Xiao L, Rohren E, Lee JH, Liao Z, Hofstetter W, et al. The higher the decrease in the standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography after chemoradiation, the better the survival of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2009;115:5184–5192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jayachandran P, Pai RK, Quon A, Graves E, Krakow TE, La T, et al. Postchemoradiotherapy positron emission tomography predicts pathologic response and survival in patients with esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012

  36. Kauppi JT, Oksala N, Salo JA, Helin H, Karhumaki L, Kemppainen J, et al. Locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma: response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival predicted by ([18 F])FDG-PET/CT. Acta Oncol 2012

  37. Kim MK, Ryu JS, Kim SB, Ahn JH, Kim SY, Park SI, et al. Value of complete metabolic response by (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in oesophageal cancer for prediction of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:1385–1391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ, Weber WA, Becker K, Stein HJ, et al. Pet to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: The Municon Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:797–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Makino T, Miyata H, Yamasaki M, Fujiwara Y, Takiguchi S, Nakajima K, et al. Utility of response evaluation to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery (USA) 2010;148:908–918.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Swisher SG, Maish M, Erasmus JJ, Correa AM, Ajani JA, Bresalier R, et al. Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:1152–1160; discussion 1152–1160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, Dittler HJ, Helmberger H, Avril NE, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3058–3065.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wieder HA, Brucher BL, Zimmermann F, Becker K, Lordick F, Beer A, et al. Time course of tumor metabolic activity during chemoradiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:900–908.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wieder HA, Ott K, Lordick F, Becker K, Stahl A, Herrmann K, et al. Prediction of tumor response by FDG-PET: comparison of the accuracy of single and sequential studies in patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1925–1932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yang Y, Yang Z, Han A, Feng R, Ma Y, Kong L, et al. Prediction of the outcome of definitive chemoradiation by decrease in F-18 FDG uptake in nonsurgical esophageal squamous cell cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2011;36:860–866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zum Buschenfelde CM, Herrmann K, Schuster T, Geinitz H, Langer R, Becker K, et al. 18f-FDG PET-guided salvage neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: The Municon II trial. J. Nucl. Med. 2011;52:1189–1196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vallbohmer D, Holscher AH, Dietlein M, Bollschweiler E, Baldus SE, Monig SP, et al. [18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography for the assessment of histopathologic response and prognosis after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2009;250:888–894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lorenzen S, Panzram B, Keller G, Lordick F, Herrmann K, Becker K, et al. Association of the VEGF 936C > T polymorphism with FDG uptake, clinical, histopathological, and metabolic response in patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. Mol Imaging Biol 2011;13:178–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Makino T, Doki Y, Miyata H, Yasuda T, Yamasaki M, Fujiwara Y, et al. Use of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography to evaluate responses to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for primary tumor and lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery 2008;144:793–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Murthy SB, Patnana SV, Xiao L, Rohren E, Hofstetter WL, Swisher SG, et al. The standardized uptake value of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after chemoradiation and clinical outcome in patients with localized gastroesophageal carcinoma. Oncology (Switzerland) 2010;78:316–322.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F, Becker K, Busch R, Herrmann K, et al. Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4692–4698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Patnana SV, Murthy SB, Xiao L, Rohren E, Hofstetter WL, Swisher SG, et al. Critical role of surgery in patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma with a poor prognosis after chemoradiation as defined by positron emission tomography. Cancer 2010;116:4487–4494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Siewert JR, Lordick F, Ott K, Stein HJ, Weber WA, Becker K, et al. Induction chemotherapy in barrett cancer: influence on surgical risk and outcome. Ann Surg 2007;246:624–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Swisher SG, Erasmus J, Maish M, Correa AM, Macapinlac H, Ajani JA, et al. 2-Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography imaging is predictive of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101:1776–1785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Group Q-S. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1093–1104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645–651.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Luketich JD, Friedman DM, Weigel TL, Meehan MA, Keenan RJ, Townsend DW, et al. Evaluation of distant metastases in esophageal cancer: 100 consecutive positron emission tomography scans. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1133–1136; discussion 1136–1137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002;21:1525–1537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JW. Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ 2002;324:477–480.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cuenca X, Hennequin C, Hindie E, Rivera S, Vercellino L, Baruch-Hennequin V, et al. Evaluation of early response to concomitant chemoradiotherapy by interim (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with locally advanced oesophageal carcinomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:477–485.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Zhu W, Xing L, Yue J, Sun X, Zhao H, Yu J. Prognostic significance of SUV on PET/CT in patients with localised oesophagogastric junction cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2012

  62. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of international harmonization project in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:571–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Division, CHU UCL Mont-Godinne – Dinant, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1 Dr Therasse, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium

    Pascaline Schollaert, Thierry Vander Borght & Bruno Krug

  2. Institute of Health and Society, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

    Ralph Crott & Bruno Krug

  3. Surgery, CHU UCL Mont-Godinne – Dinant, Université Catholique de Louvain, Yvoir, Belgium

    Claude Bertrand

  4. Oncology, CHU UCL Mont-Godinne – Dinant, Université Catholique de Louvain, Yvoir, Belgium

    Lionel D’Hondt

Authors
  1. Pascaline Schollaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralph Crott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claude Bertrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lionel D’Hondt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thierry Vander Borght
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruno Krug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Krug.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schollaert, P., Crott, R., Bertrand, C. et al. A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of 18FDG-PET in Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation on the Survival Outcome Stratification. J Gastrointest Surg 18, 894–905 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2488-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2488-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation