Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The prognostic role of metabolic tumor burden in 18F-FDG PET/CT in the primary staging of rectal cancers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The prognostic value of FDG PET/CT metabolic tumor burden has been established in various solid tumors, but its significance in the staging of rectal cancer remains underexplored. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic role of FDG PET/CT metabolic tumor burden in the primary staging of rectal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 82 consecutive histology-proven rectal cancer patients, including 30 females (37%), with a mean age of 60.8 years. These patients underwent staging FDG PET/CT, and various metabolic tumor burden parameters (tuSUVmax, tuMTV, wbMTV, tuTLG, wbTLG) were calculated. The study assessed the correlation between metabolic tumor burden parameters and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), as well as histopathology, clinical staging, performance status, bone-mineral indexes, hematology, and therapy management strategies.

Results

The study revealed that metabolic tumor burden, along with the presence of sarcopenia and absence of surgery, were significantly and independently associated with overall survival. Notably, a wbTLG cutoff value of 354 effectively discriminated survivors from non-survivors (p = 0.0007) with 83% specificity. Furthermore, higher whole-body tumor burden (wbTLG: p = 0.0090) and low body mass index (p = 0.0231) were significantly linked to an increased risk of disease progression.

Conclusion

This research suggests that whole-body tumor burden assessed through staging FDG PET/CT can serve as an independent imaging biomarker for prognostication in rectal cancer patients.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siewgel R et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J Clin 71:209–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2021) Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 71:7–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuipers EJ, Grady WM, Lieberman D et al (2015) Colorectal cancer review. Nat Rev Dis Prim 1:65

    Google Scholar 

  4. Draft C et al (2015) Global, regional and national levels of age-specific mortality and 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 385:1990–2013

    Google Scholar 

  5. Papamichael D et al (2014) Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013. Ann Oncol 26:463–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hurwitz H et al (2004) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2335–2342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fujii H, Matsuhashi N, Kitahora M et al (2019) Bevacizumab in combination with TAS-102 improves clinical outcomes in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study. Oncologist. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0541

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. (2021) Colorectal cancer. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London. (NICE Guideline, No. 151). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559922/

  9. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F et al (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:75–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Keller DS, Berho M, Perez RO et al (2020) The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:414–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gallamini A, Zwarthoed C, Borra A (2014) Positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Cancers (Basel) 6:1821–1889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H et al (2004) Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 22:4357–4368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chowdhury FU, Shah N, Scarsbrook AF, Bradley KM (2010) [18F] FDG PET/CT imaging of colorectal cancer: a pictorial review. Postgrad Med J 86:174–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdel-Nabi H, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM et al (1998) Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology 206:755–760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY (2004) Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1420–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Petersen RK, Hess S, Alavi A, Høilund-Carlsen PF (2014) Clinical impact of FDG-PET/CT on colorectal cancer staging and treatment strategy. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 4:471–482

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ozis SE, Soydal C, Akyol C et al (2014) The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the primary staging of rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 12:26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sasaki K, Kawasaki H, Sato M et al (2017) Impact of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose uptake on preoperative positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the lymph nodes of patients with primary colorectal cancer. Dig Surg 34:60–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vijayaragavan M, Marco K, Sze TL et al (2012) Prognostic ability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of colorectal liver metastases. J Nucl Med 53:1345–1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL et al (2019) The REDCap consortium: building na international community of software platform partners. J Bio Med Inform 95:103208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pozzuto L, Silveira MN, Mendes MCS et al (2021) Myosteatosis differentially affects the prognosis of non-metastatic colon and rectal cancer patients: an exploratory study. Front Oncol 11:762444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al (2017) The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67:93–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. da Cunha LP, Silveira MN, Mendes MCS et al (2019) Sarcopenia as an independent prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective evaluation. Clin Nutr ESPEN 32:107–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin L, Birdsell L, MacDonald N, Reiman T, Clandinin MT, McCargar LJ et al (2013) Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J Clin Oncol 31(12):1539e4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Boellaard R et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Xu J, Li Y, Hu S, Lu L, Gao Z, Yuan H (2019) The significant value of predicting prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer using 18F-FDG PET metabolic parameters of primary tumors and hematological parameters. Ann Nucl Med 33:32–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Oner AO, Budak ES, Yıldırım S, Aydın F, Sezer C (2017) The value of 18FDG PET/CT parameters, hematological parameters and tumor markers in predicting KRAS oncogene mutation in colorectal cancer. Hell J Nucl Med 20:160–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu Z, Meng X, Zhang H et al (2020) Predicting distant metastasis and chemotherapy benefit in locally advanced rectal cancer. Nat Commun 11:4308

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ventura L, Scarlattei M, Gnetti L et al (2020) Prognostic value of [18F]FDG PET/CT parameters in surgically resected primary lung adenocarcinoma: a single-center experience. Tumori. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620904404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gupta N, Singh N (2020) To evaluate prognostic significance of metabolic-derived tumour volume at staging 18-flurodeoxyglucose PET-CT scan and to compare it with standardized uptake value-based response evaluation on interim 18-flurodeoxyglucose PET-CT scan in patients of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). Nucl Med Commun 41:395–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sarikaya L, Albatineh AN, Sarikaya A (2020) Revisiting weight-normalized SUV and lean-body-mass–normalized SUV in PET studies. J Nucl Med Tech 48:163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dai D, Zhou B, Zhong Y, Jin H, Wang X (2019) Survival of patients with resected primary colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma: a competing risk nomogram analysis. Oncol Lett 18:6594–6604

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hyngstrom JR, Hu CY, Xing Y et al (2012) Clinicopathology and outcomes for mucinous and signet ring colorectal adenocarcinoma: analysis from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2814–2821

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Catalano V, Loupakis F, Graziano F et al (2009) Mucinous histology predicts for poor response rate and overall survival of patients with colorectal cancer and treated with first-line oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 100:881–887

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Negri FV, Wotherspoon A, Cunningham D, Norman AR, Chong G, Ross PJ (2005) Mucinous histology predicts for reduced fluorouracil responsiveness and survival in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 16:1305–1310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sengul N, Wexner SD, Woodhouse S et al (2006) Effects of radiotherapy on different histopathological types of rectal carcinoma. Colorectal Dis 8:283–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Au-Yeung AW, Luk WH, Lo AX (2012) Imaging features of colorectal liver metastasis in FDG PET-CT: a retrospective correlative analysis between CT attenuation and FDG uptake. Nucl Med Commun 33:403–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dos Anjos DA, Habr-Gama A, Vailati BB et al (2016) (18)F-FDG uptake by rectal cancer is similar in mucinous and nonmucinous histological subtypes. Ann Nucl Med 30:513–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang R, Zhao J, Xu J, Chen Y (2020) Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of young patients with mucinous and signet-ring cell colorectal cancer. Arch Med Sci 16:359–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Oncology and Radiology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Rua Vital Brasil, 251, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, PO Box 6142, Campinas, São Paulo, CEP: 13083-888, Brazil

    Juliano S. Fonseca, Barbara J. Amorim, Allan O. Santos, Victor C. Heringer, Mariana C. L. Lima & Elba Etchebehere

  2. Division of Oncology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

    Maria Carolina S. Mendes, Marina N. Silveira, Lorena P. Cunha & José Barreto C. Carvalheira

  3. Colorectal Surgery Unit, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

    Carlos Augusto R. Martinez & Claudio Coy

  4. Department of Research and Statistics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

    Cleide Silva

Authors
  1. Juliano S. Fonseca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Carolina S. Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara J. Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allan O. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marina N. Silveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cleide Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Victor C. Heringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mariana C. L. Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lorena P. Cunha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Carlos Augusto R. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Claudio Coy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. José Barreto C. Carvalheira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Elba Etchebehere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elba Etchebehere.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Fonseca, J.S., Mendes, M.C.S., Amorim, B.J. et al. The prognostic role of metabolic tumor burden in 18F-FDG PET/CT in the primary staging of rectal cancers. Clin Transl Imaging (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00621-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00621-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation