Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

FDG-PET after radiotherapy is a good prognostic indicator of rectal cancer

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the management of rectal cancer after the combined therapy of the radiation and surgical operation, the evaluation of the prognosis is important. Although fluoro-18-deoxy glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is considered as a useful tool for evaluation of therapeutic effect of this cancer as well as the other cancers, however, there are few articles that clearly describe the appropriate procedure of the FDG-PET in order to obtain the best prognostic value. The purpose of the present study is to compare several variations of a semi-quantification method, the Standardized Uptake Values (SUV) and to determine the most appropriate parameter for the prognostic prediction and to propose the quantitative guideline of the FDG-PET. Especially, the authors focused on the SUV after radiotherapy, which had not been considered as a key quantitative value, as it was rather taken as a mere indicator of the therapeutic (radiotherapeutic) effect, not a direct indicator of the prognosis for the cancer itself.Methods: Forty patients with rectal cancer in the lower rectal region underwent two series of FDG-PET study before and after pre-operative radiotherapy. Their SUVs were calculated from FDG-PET data and compared with the results of the long-term follow-up of the patients as well as with histopathological outcomes.Results: All 40 patients had high FDG uptake before radiotherapy. The mean value of SUV before radiotherapy (SUV1) was 7.6. After radiotherapy, the mean value of SUV (SUV2) decreased to 4.2. There was a significant difference in SUV2 between the groups with and without recurrence (p<0.05), however, SUV1 or SUV ratio (SUV2/SUV1) displayed no significant difference with the incidence of recurrence.Conclusion: SUV2 was considered to be a good prognostic indicator for long-term prognosis of rectal cancer patients. SUV1 nor SUV ratio SUV2/SUV1 did not have the equivalent prognostic usefulness. Subsets of patients with SUV2 greater than 3.2 should be observed closely.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics, 2001.CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51: 15–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoekstra CJ, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Postmus PE, Teule GJ, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytic methods.Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27: 731–743.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Akhurst T, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography imaging of colorectal cancer. [Review]Seminar Oncol 1999; 26: 577–583.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdel-Nabi H, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM, Cronin VR, Galantowicz PJ, Carbone GM, et al. Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: Correlation with histopathologic and CT findings.Radiol 1998; 206: 755–760.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fong Y, Saldinder PF, Akhurst T, Macapinlac H, Yeung H, Finn RD, et al. Utility of18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases.Am J Surg 1999; 178: 282–287.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Haberkom U, Strauss LG, Dimitrakopoupou A, Seiffert E, Oberdorfer F, Ziegler S, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose imaging of advanced head and neck cancer after chemotherapy.J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bender H, Bandard N, Metten, N, Bandard M, Mezger J, Schomburg A, et al. Possible role of FDG-PET in the early prediction of therapy outcome in liver metastases of colorectal cancer.Hybridoma 1999; 18: 87–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Findlay M, Young H, Cunningham D, Iveson A, Cronin B, Hickish T, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of tumor metabolism using fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer liver metastases: correlation with tumor response to fluorouracil.J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 700–708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai DTM, Fulham M, Stephan MS, Chu KM, Solomon M, Thompson JF, et al. The role of whole-body positron emission tomography with [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose in identifying operable colorectal cancer metastases to the liver.Arch Surg 1996; 131: 703–707.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus. (6th edition) [ed.] Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, 1998.

  11. Ehrenkaufer RL, Potocki JF, Jewett DM. Simple synthesis of F-18 labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose.J Nucl Med 1989; 25: 333–337.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Iida H, Miura S, Kanno I, Murakami M, Takahashi K, Yamamoto S, et al. Design and evaluation of HEADTOME-IV, a whole-body positron emission tomograph.IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1989; 36: 1006–1010.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zasadny KR, Wahl LW. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[Fluorine-18]-Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose: Variations with body weight and a method for correction.Radiology 1993; 189: 847–850.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Keyes JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value?J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1836–1839.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction.Radiol 1999; 213: 521–525.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis.Semin Nucl Med 1978; 4: 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies.Invest Radiol 1989; 24: 234–245.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang W, Larson SM, Fazzari M, Tickoo SK, Kolbert K, Sgouros G, et al. Prognostic value of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic scanning in patients with thyroid cancer.J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85: 1107–1113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fukunaga T, Okazumi S, Koide Y, Isono K, Imazeki K. Evaluation of esophageal cancers using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET.J Nucl Med 1988; 39: 1002–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Minn H, Lapela M, Klemi PJ, Grenman R, Leskinen S, Lindholm P, et al. Prediction of survival with fluorine-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose and PET in head and neck cancer.J Nucl Med 1997; 1907–1911.

  21. Ichiya T, Kuwabara Y, Otsuka M, Tahara T, Yoshikai T, Fukumura T, et al. Assessment of response to chemotherapy using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography.J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 1655–1660.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyoku, 113-8655, Tokyo, Japan

    Shinya Oku M.D., Keiichi Nakagawa, Toshimitsu Momose, Yoshitaka Kumakura, Atsushi Abe & Kuni Ohtomo

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Sapan

    Toshiaki Watanabe

Authors
  1. Shinya Oku M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keiichi Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toshimitsu Momose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoshitaka Kumakura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Atsushi Abe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Toshiaki Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kuni Ohtomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinya Oku M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oku, S., Nakagawa, K., Momose, T. et al. FDG-PET after radiotherapy is a good prognostic indicator of rectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 16, 409–416 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02990079

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02990079

Key words

Search

Navigation