Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1869–1878 | Cite as

Clinical Significance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography-Positive Lymph Nodes to Outcomes of Trimodal Therapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

  • Yoichi HamaiEmail author
  • Jun Hihara
  • Manabu Emi
  • Yuta Ibuki
  • Yuji Murakami
  • Ikuno Nishibuchi
  • Yasushi Nagata
  • Yoshiro Aoki
  • Takaoki Furukawa
  • Morihito Okada
Thoracic Oncology



The clinical significance of lymph node (LN) status determined by preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has not been investigated in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) followed by surgery (trimodal therapy).


This study reviewed 132 consecutive patients with ESCC who had been preoperatively evaluated using FDG-PET before and after NCRT to analyze associations among LN status according to PET findings, pathologic LN metastasis, and prognosis of ESCC after trimodal therapy.


Lymph nodes that were PET-positive both before and after NCRT comprised significant predictive markers of pathologic LN metastasis in station-by-station analyses (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy respectively 41.7%, 95.0%, and 92.7% before, and 12.0%, 99.4%, and 95.6% after NCRT; both p < 0.0001). The numbers of LNs evaluated using PET before and after NCRT were significantly associated with those of pathologic metastatic LNs. Uni- and multivariable analyses selected LN status determined by PET before NCRT as a significant independent predictor of both recurrence-free [LN-negative vs LN-positive: hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–3.23; p = 0.045] and overall survival (HR 2.62; 95% CI 1.29–5.30; p = 0.01).


The status of LN determined by preoperative FDG-PET is significantly associated with pathologic LN status and the prognosis of ESCC with trimodal therapy. Thus, FDG-PET is a useful diagnostic tool for preoperative prediction of pathologic LN metastasis and survival among patients with ESCC.



There are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7158_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (229 kb)
Fig. S1 Station numbers and anatomic locations of regional lymph nodes based on the guidelines of the Japanese Society for Esophageal Diseases.40A Border between neck and upper mediastinum. B Border between upper and middle mediastinum (bifurcation of trachea). C Border between middle and lower mediastinum. D Border between lower mediastinum and abdomen (diaphragm) (JPEG 229 kb)


  1. 1.
    Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, et al. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:681–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger AC, Farma J, Scott WJ, et al. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma is associated with significantly improved survival. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4330–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miyata H, Yamasaki M, Takiguchi S, Nakajima K, Fujiwara Y, Mori M, Doki Y. Pre- and post-therapy nodal status equally affects survival of patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving preoperative chemoradiation. Oncol Rep. 2010;23:1331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akutsu Y, Shuto K, Kono T, et al. The number of pathologic lymph nodes involved is still a significant prognostic factor even after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:756–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamai Y, Hihara J, Emi M, et al. Evaluation of prognostic factors for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. World J Surg. 2018;42:1496–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt T, Lordick F, Herrmann K, Ott K. Value of functional imaging by PET in esophageal cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kato H, Nakajima M. The efficacy of FDG-PET for the management of esophageal cancer: review article. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;18:412–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goense L, van Rossum PS, Reitsma JB, et al. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for the detection of recurrent esophageal cancer after treatment with curative intent: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:995–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stiekema J, Vermeulen D, Vegt E, et al. Detecting interval metastases and response assessment using 18F-FDG PET/CT after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39:862–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamai Y, Hihara J, Emi M, Furukawa T, Yamakita I, Kurokawa T, Okada M. Ability of fluorine-18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to predict outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:1132–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cong L, Wang S, Gao T, Hu L. The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET for pathological response of primary tumor in patients with esophageal cancer during or after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46:1118–26.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C, editors. International Union Against Cancer (UICC): TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 7th ed. New York: Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamai Y, Hihara J, Emi M, Murakami Y, Kenjo M, Nagata Y, Okada M. Results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with docetaxel and 5-fluorouracil followed by esophagectomy to treat locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1887–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emi M, Hihara J, Hamai Y, Aoki Y, Okada M, Kenjo M, Murakami Y. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil for esophageal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;69:1499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamai Y, Hihara J, Taomoto J, Yamakita I, Ibuki Y, Okada M. Effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2015;28:358–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer, 11th edition: part II and III. Esophagus. 2017;14:37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yasuda T, Yano M, Miyata H, Yamasaki M, Takiguchi S, Fujiwara Y, Doki Y. Prognostic significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)-positive lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yasuda T, Higuchi I, Yano M, et al. The impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography positive lymph nodes on postoperative recurrence and survival in resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:652–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gillies RS, Middleton MR, Han C, Marshall RE, Maynard ND, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Role of positron emission tomography-computed tomography in predicting survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2012;99:239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer, 11th edition: part I. Esophagus. 2017;14:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miyata H, Yamasaki M, Takahashi T, et al. Relevance of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-positive lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for squamous cell oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1490–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim SJ, Pak K, Chang S. Determination of regional lymph node status using 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters in oesophageal cancer patients: comparison of SUV, volumetric parameters and intratumoral heterogeneity. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim SJ, Kim IJ, Kim K. Predictive value of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18F-FDG PET for regional lymph node status in patients with esophageal cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:442–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ela Bella AJ, Zhang YR, Fan W, et al. Maximum standardized uptake value on PET/CT in preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis from thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Chin J Cancer. 2014;33:211–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hsu PK, Lin KH, Wang SJ, Huang CS, Wu YC, Hsu WH. Preoperative positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts advanced lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients. World J Surg. 2011;35:1321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karashima R, Watanabe M, Imamura Y, et al. Advantages of FDG-PET/CT over CT alone in the preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer. Surg Today. 2015;45:471–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miyata H, Yamasaki M, Makino T, et al. Impact of number of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-positive lymph nodes on survival of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2016;103:97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elliott JA, O’Farrell NJ, King S, et al. Value of CT-PET after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the prediction of histological tumour regression, nodal status, and survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1702–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Song SY, Kim JH, Ryu JS, et al. FDG-PET in the prediction of pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:1053–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yen TJ, Chung CS, Wu YW, et al. Comparative study between endoscopic ultrasonography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography in staging patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25:40–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kato H, Kimura H, Nakajima M, et al. The additional value of integrated PET/CT over PET in initial lymph node staging of esophageal cancer. Oncol Rep. 2008;20:857–62.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoon SK, Jung JI, Park MJ, et al. Multidetector CT assessment of lymph node size for nodal staging in patients with potentially operable squamous esophageal cancer and the 18F-FDG positron emission tomography CT correlation. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2010;62:235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Okada M, Murakami T, Kumano S, Kuwabara M, Shimono T, Hosono M, Shiozaki H. Integrated FDG-PET/CT compared with intravenous contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation of metastatic regional lymph nodes in patients with resectable early-stage esophageal cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shi W, Wang W, Wang J, Cheng H, Huo X. Meta-analysis of 18FDG PET-CT for nodal staging in patients with esophageal cancer. Surg Oncol. 2013;22:112–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yamada H, Hosokawa M, Itoh K, et al. Diagnostic value of F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node metastasis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surg Today. 2014;44:1258–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Park SY, Kim DJ, Jung HS, Yun MJ, Lee JW, Park CK. Relationship between the size of metastatic lymph nodes and positron emission tomographic/computer tomographic findings in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Surg. 2015;39:2948–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hong D, Lunagomez S, Kim EE, et al. Value of baseline positron emission tomography for predicting overall survival in patient with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104:1620–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Deng HY, Wang WP, Wang YC, Hu WP, Ni PZ, Lin YD, Chen LQ. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy? A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the options for neoadjuvant therapy for treating oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;51:421–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoichi Hamai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jun Hihara
    • 2
  • Manabu Emi
    • 1
  • Yuta Ibuki
    • 1
  • Yuji Murakami
    • 3
  • Ikuno Nishibuchi
    • 3
  • Yasushi Nagata
    • 3
  • Yoshiro Aoki
    • 2
  • Takaoki Furukawa
    • 1
  • Morihito Okada
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and MedicineHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryHiroshima City Asa Citizens HospitalHiroshimaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Biomedical and Health SciencesHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations