Effectiveness of Repeat 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Computerized Tomography (PET-CT) Scan in Identifying Interval Metastases for Patients with Esophageal Cancer
An 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computerized tomography (PET-CT) scan is performed after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) to restage esophageal cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of PET-CT to accurately identify interval metastatic disease following nCRT.
This was a single-institution retrospective review (January 2005–February 2012) of patients with esophageal cancer treated with nCRT who underwent pre- and post-nCRT PET-CT.
A total of 283 patients were treated with nCRT, of whom 258 (91.2%) had both a pre- and post-nCRT PET-CT. On the post-nCRT PET-CT, 64 patients (24.8%) had interval findings concerning for metastatic disease. Of these patients, only 10 (15.6%) had true-positive findings of metastatic disease (six biopsy proven). The sites of interval metastases included bone (4), liver (3), peritoneum (1), mediastinal lymph nodes (1), and cervical lymph nodes (1). The positive predictive value of post-nCRT PET-CT for interval metastases was 15.6% (10/64), and the yield for detecting metastases since the pre-nCRT PET-CT was 3.9% (10/258). The work-up of the 54 patients (20.9% of the initial starting group) with false-positive post-nCRT findings included biopsy (24.6%) and immediate additional imaging (45.2%). A total of 208 patients proceeded with surgery: 163 (78.4%) had no new findings on post-nCRT PET-CT, and 45 (21.6%) had new false-positive findings. False-positive sites mainly included the lung (15) and liver (14).
The yield of post-nCRT PET-CT for the detection of new metastatic disease was 3.9%. Post-nCRT PET-CT often leads to a high proportion of false positives and subsequent investigational work-up.
KeywordsEsophageal Cancer Positive Predictive Value National Comprehensive Cancer Network High Resolution Computerize Tomography Positron Emission Tomography Computerize Tomography
The statistical analysis was supported by Roswell Park Cancer Institute and National Cancer Institute Grant P30CA016056.
- 2.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Esophageal Cancer (Version 2.2016). Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/esophagus.pdf. Accessed 5 Sep 2016.
- 4.Swisher SG, Maish M, Erasmus JJ, et al. Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1152-1160; discussion 1152−60.Google Scholar
- 10.Higuchi I, Yasuda T, Yano 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Palie O, Michel P, Menard JF, et al. The predictive value of treatment response using FDG PET performed on day 21 of chemoradiotherapy in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. A prospective, multicentre study (RTEP3). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1345–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ohja B, et al. The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration, integrated positron emission tomography with computed tomography, and computed tomography in restaging patients with esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:1232–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar