Advertisement

Optimizing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Through the Use of Early Response Evaluation by Positron Emission Tomography

  • Florian Lordick
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 196)

Abstract

Metabolic imaging and early response assessment by positron emission tomography (PET) may guide treatment of localized esophageal cancers. The most consistent and validated results have been obtained during neoadjuvant treatment of adenocarcinoma of the esophago-gastric junction (AEG). It was demonstrated that 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucoe (FDG)-PET is highly accurate for identifying non-responding tumors within 2 weeks after the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy when a quantitative threshold for metabolic response is used. In consecutive phase II studies the metabolic activity, defined by the standardized uptake (SUV) of 18-FDG before and during chemotherapy, was measured. Significant decreases of the SUV after only two weeks of induction chemotherapy were observed. A drop of >35 % 2 weeks after the start of chemotherapy revealed as an accurate cut-off value to predict response after a 12-week course of preoperative chemotherapy. This cut-off was recently confirmed in a US study, where investigators did follow-up PET not 14 days but 6 weeks after initiation of chemotherapy. It was further noticed that the metabolic response to induction chemotherapy revealed as an independent prognostic factor in locally advanced AEG. Therefore, PET could be used to tailor treatment according to the sensitivity of an individual tumor. This concept was realized in the MUNICON-1 and -2 trials. These trials prospectively confirmed that responders to induction chemotherapy can be identified by early metabolic imaging using FDG-PET. Continuing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the responding population resulted in a favorable outcome. Moreover, MUNICON-1 showed that chemotherapy can be discontinued at an early stage in metabolic non-responders without compromising the patients’ prognosis, but saving time and reducing side effects and costs. MUNICON-2 showed that the addition of neoadjuvant radiation therapy in metabolic nonresponders did not lead to an improvement of their poor prognosis, thus showing that early metabolic nonresponse indicates dismal tumor biology. Future studies need to validate the prognostic and predictive value of PET in multicenter settings and in conjunction with different neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemo-immunotherapy regimens.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Esophageal Cancer Standardize Uptake Value Induction Chemotherapy Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS et al (2004) Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 45:1519–1527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ et al (2008) The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:2320–2333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brücher BL, Weber W, Bauer M et al (2001) Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg 233:300–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D et al (2003) Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 21:428–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E et al (2000) Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 18:3202–3210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A et al (2002) Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol 13:361–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP et al (2008) Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49:480–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillham CM, Lucey JA, Keogan M et al (2006) (18)FDG uptake during induction chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer fails to predict histomorphological tumour response. Br J Cancer 95:1174–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herrmann K, Ott K, Buck AK et al (2007) Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis. J Nucl Med 48:1945–1950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ilson DH, Minsky BD, Ku GY et al (2011) Phase 2 trial of induction and concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly irinotecan and cisplatin followed by surgery for esophageal cancer. Cancer. doi:  10.1002/cncr.26591. (Epub ahead of print)
  11. Javeri H, Xiao L, Rohren E et al (2009) 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 115:5184–5192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim MK, Ryu JS, Kim SB et al (2007) 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 43:1385–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klaeser B, Nitzsche E, Schuller JC et al (2009) Limited predictive value of FDG-PET for response assessment in the preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer: results of a prospective multi-center trial (SAKK 75/02). Onkologie 32:724–730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levine EA, Farmer MR, Clark P et al (2006) Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 243:472–478Google Scholar
  15. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ et al (2007) PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 8:797–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lordick F, Ruers T, Aust DE et al (2008) European organisation of research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) gastrointestinal group: workshop on the role of metabolic imaging in the neoadjuvant treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. Eur J Cancer 44:1807–1819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monjazeb AM, Riedlinger G, Aklilu M et al (2010) Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer staged with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET): can postchemoradiotherapy FDG-PET predict the utility of resection. J Clin Oncol 28(31):4714–4721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F et al (2006) Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 24:4692–4698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peng HQ, Halsey K, Sun CC et al (2009) Clinical utility of postchemoradiation endoscopic brush cytology and biopsy in predicting residual esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 117:463–472Google Scholar
  20. Räsänen JV, Sihvo EI, Knuuti MJ et al (2003) Prospective analysis of accuracy of positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and endoscopic ultrasonography in staging of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol 10:954–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ribi K, Koeberle D, Schuller JC et al (2009) Is a change in patient-reported dysphagia after induction chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer a predictive factor for pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation? Support Care Cancer 17:1109–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rizk N, Downey RJ, Akhurst T et al (2006) Preoperative 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography standardized uptake values predict survival after esophageal adenocarcinoma resection. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1076–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rizk NP, Tang L, Adusumilli PS et al (2009) Predictive value of initial PET-SUVmax in patients with locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 4:875–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Bains MS et al (2009) Post-treatment endoscopic biopsy is a poor-predictor of pathologic response in patients undergoing chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 249:764–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schomburg A, Bender H, Reichel C et al (1996) Standardized uptake values of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: the value of different normalization procedures. Eur J Nucl Med 23:571–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shields AF (2012) PET imaging of tumor growth: not as easy as it looks. Clin Cancer Res 18:1189–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shields AF, Grierson JR, Dohmen BM et al (1998) Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med 4:1334–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swisher SG, Erasmus J, Maish M et al (2004) 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 101:1776–1785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vallböhmer D, Hölscher AH, Dietlein M et al (2009) [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography for the assessment of histopathologic response and prognosis after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 250:888–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Heijl M, Omloo JM, van Berge Henegouwen MI (2011) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for evaluating early response during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 253(1):56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Vliet EP, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG et al (2008) Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 98:547–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Westreenen HL, Cobben DC, Jager PL et al (2005) Comparison of 18F-FLT PET and 18F-FDG PET in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 46:400–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. van Westreenen HL, Westerterp M, Bossuyt PM et al (2004) Systematic review of the staging performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3805–3812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vrieze O, Haustermans K, De Wever W et al (2004) Is there a role for FGD-PET in radiotherapy planning in esophageal carcinoma? Radiother Oncol 73:269–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K et al (2001) Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol 19:3058–3065PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wieder HA, Beer AJ, Lordick F et al (2005) Comparison of changes in tumor metabolic activity and tumor size during chemotherapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Nucl Med 46:2029–2034PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Cancer Center Leipzig (UCCL)University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations