Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 2831–2837 | Cite as

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography versus Computed Tomography in Predicting Histopathological Response to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment in Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Matthijs H. van Gool
  • Tjeerd S. Aukema
  • Eva E. Schaake
  • Herman Rijna
  • Henk E. Codrington
  • Renato A. Valdés Olmos
  • Hendrik J. Teertstra
  • Renee van Pel
  • Sjaak A. Burgers
  • Harm van Tinteren
  • Houke M. Klomp
Thoracic Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To prospectively evaluate diagnostic computed tomography (CT) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for identification of histopathologic response to neoadjuvant erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

This study was designed as an open-label phase 2 trial, performed in four hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients received preoperative erlotinib 150 mg once daily for 3 weeks. CT and FDG-PET/CT were performed at baseline and after 3 weeks of treatment. CT was assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. FDG-PET/CT, tumor FDG uptake, and changes were measured by standardized uptake values (SUV). Radiologic and metabolic responses were compared to the histopathological response.

Results

Sixty patients were enrolled onto this study. In 53 patients (22 men, 31 women), the combination of CT, FDG-PET/CT, and histopathological evaluation was available for analysis. Three patients (6 %) had radiologic response. According to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria, 15 patients (28 %) showed metabolic response. In 11 patients, histopathologic response (≥50 % necrosis) was seen. In predicting histopathologic response, relative FDG change in SUVmax showed more SUVmax decrease in the histopathologic response group (−32 %) versus the group with no pathologic response (−4 %) (p = 0.0132). Relative change in tumor size on diagnostic CT was similar in these groups with means close to 0.

Conclusions

FDG-PET/CT has an advantage over CT as a predictive tool to identify histopathologic response after 3 weeks of EGFR–TKI treatment in NSCLC patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Pisters KM, Le CT. Adjuvant chemotherapy in completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3270–3278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilligan D, Nicolson M, Smith I, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: results of the MRC LU22/NVALT 2/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised trial and update of systematic review. Lancet. 2007;369:1929–1937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cobo M, Isla D, Massuti B, et al. Customizing cisplatin based on quantitative excision repair cross-complementing 1 mRNA expression: a phase III trial in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2747–2754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129–2139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sun S, Schiller JH, Spinola M, Minna JD. New molecularly targeted therapies for lung cancer. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:2740–2750.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soria JC, Mok TS, Cappuzzo F, Janne PA. EGFR-mutated oncogene-addicted non-small cell lung cancer: current trends and future prospects. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38:416–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen MH, Johnson JR, Chattopadhyay S, et al. Approval summary: erlotinib maintenance therapy of advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Oncologist. 2010;15:1344–1351.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schaake EE, Kappers I, Codrington HE, et al. Tumor response and toxicity of neoadjuvant erlotinib in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2731–2738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500–2507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003;229:526–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Tinteren H, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS. FDG-PET in addition to conventional work-up in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aukema TS, Kappers I, Olmos RA, et al. Is 18F-FDG PET/CT useful for the early prediction of histopathologic response to neoadjuvant erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer? J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1344–1348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benz MR, Herrmann K, Walter F, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring treatment responses to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1684–1689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Brien ME, Myerson JS, Coward JI, et al. A phase II study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving erlotinib (Tarceva); objective and symptomatic responses at 6 and 12 weeks. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:68–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zander T, Scheffler M, Nogova L, et al. Early prediction of nonprogression in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib by using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose and [18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1701–1708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, et al. Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8362–8370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mileshkin L, Hicks RJ, Hughes BG, et al. Changes in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine positron emission tomography imaging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:3304–3315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanvetyanon T, Eikman EA, Sommers E, Robinson L, Boulware D, Bepler G. Computed tomography response, but not positron emission tomography scan response, predicts survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4610–4616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–1782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Junker K, Thomas M, Schulmann K, Klinke F, Bosse U, Muller KM. Tumour regression in non-small-cell lung cancer following neoadjuvant therapy. Histological assessment. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1997;123:469–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lara-Guerra H, Waddell TK, Salvarrey MA, et al. Phase II study of preoperative gefitinib in clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6229–6236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Macmanus MP, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ. Overview of early response assessment in lymphoma with FDG-PET. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:10–18.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Mukherjee S, Pask AH, Bass CS, Katholi CR. Positron emission tomography scanning with 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose as a predictor of response of neoadjuvant treatment for non-small cell carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:938–944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang C, Liu J, Tong J, Sun X, Song S, Huang G. 18F-FDG-PET evaluation of pathological tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with NSCLC. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:71–77.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tuma RS. Sometimes size doesn’t matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1272–1274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, Mortensen J. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5:531–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Port JL, Kent MS, Korst RJ, Keresztes R, Levin MA, Altorki NK. Positron emission tomography scanning poorly predicts response to preoperative chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:254–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Su H, Bodenstein C, Dumont RA, et al. Monitoring tumor glucose utilization by positron emission tomography for the prediction of treatment response to epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5659–5667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Besse B, Ropert S, Soria JC. Targeted therapies in lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(Suppl 9):ix135–142.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stang A, Pohlabeln H, Muller KM, Jahn I, Giersiepen K, Jockel KH. Diagnostic agreement in the histopathological evaluation of lung cancer tissue in a population-based case-control study. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:29–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Field RW, Smith BJ, Platz CE, et al. Lung cancer histologic type in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry versus independent review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1105–1107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Zander T, et al. Quantitative analysis of response to treatment with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer using 18F-FDG and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1871–1877.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthijs H. van Gool
    • 1
  • Tjeerd S. Aukema
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eva E. Schaake
    • 2
  • Herman Rijna
    • 7
  • Henk E. Codrington
    • 8
  • Renato A. Valdés Olmos
    • 3
  • Hendrik J. Teertstra
    • 4
  • Renee van Pel
    • 5
  • Sjaak A. Burgers
    • 2
  • Harm van Tinteren
    • 6
  • Houke M. Klomp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Thoracic OncologyThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of PathologyThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of BiometricsThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryKennemer GasthuisHaarlemThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Department of PulmonologyHaga HospitalThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations