Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of treatment response in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer using midtreatment PET/MRI during concurrent chemoradiotherapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to find metabolic, functional or morphological characteristics of the tumor predicting failure to achieve complete metabolic remission (CMR) by the midtreatment PET/MRI (positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging) in cervical cancer patients.

Methods

We evaluated 66 patients treated between August 2015 and November 2019 who underwent pretreatment staging, subsequent midtreatment evaluation, and definitive restaging 3 months after completing the whole treatment, all using PET/MRI. The pretreatment parameters (pre-SUVmax, pre-SUVmean, pre-MTV, pre-MTV‑S, pre-TLG, pre-TLG‑S [SUV: standard uptake value, MTV: metabolic tumor volume, TLG: total lesion glycolysis]), and the midtreatment parameters at week 5 during chemoradiotherapy (mid-SUVmax, mid-SUVmean, mid-MTV, mid-MTV‑S, mid-TLG and mid-TLG-S) were recorded. The value of ADC (apparent diffusion coefficient) was also measured. Furthermore, we recorded absolute and relative changes in all parameters—∆ and ∆%. We divided the whole group of patients into “responders” (CMR) and “non-responders” (non-CMR), and compared them on the basis of the parameters from pre-PET/MRI and mid-PET/MRI.

Results

A statistically significant difference in the evaluated parameters between responders and non-responders was found for the following parameters: mid-MTV, mid-TLG, mid-TLG‑S, mid-MTV‑S, mid-tumor size, and ∆%SUVmax. According to the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) analysis, mid-MTV‑S showed the best albeit moderate discrimination ability for the prediction of non-CMR. Significant mutual correlations of all variables, in particular between mid-MTV‑S and mid-TLG‑S and between mid-MTV and mid-TLG, were found (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our study confirmed that when using the midtreatment PET/MRI we are able to identify metabolic parameters having the discrimination ability for the prediction of non-CMR. In particular mid-MTV‑S, mid-MTV, mid-tumor size, mid-TLG‑S, mid-TLG and ∆%SUVmax.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I et al (2019) Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 144(8):1941–1953

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration (2008) Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 26(35):5802–5812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):107–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grant P, Sakellis C, Jacene HA (2014) Gynecologic oncologic imaging with PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med 44(6):461–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y (2010) Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: meta-analysis. Cancer Sci 101(6):1471–1479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y et al (2014) Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging 38(4):464–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarabhai T, Tschischka A, Stebner V et al (2018) Simultaneous multiparametric PET/MRI for the assessment of therapeutic response to chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy of cervical cancer patients: preliminary results. Clin Imaging 49:163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M et al (2015) Integrated PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42(12):1814–1824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E et al (2005) Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO working group. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO working group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 74(3):235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E, GEC ESTRO Working Group et al (2006) Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy-3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol 78(1):67–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Viswanathan AN, Thomadsen B, American Brachytherapy Society Cervical Cancer Recommendations Committee, American Brachytherapy Society (2012) American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part I: general principles. Brachytherapy 11(1):33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Viswanathan AN, Beriwal S, De Los Santos JF, American Brachytherapy Society et al (2012) American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part II: high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 11(1):47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vojtíšek R, Sukovská E, Baxa J et al (2019) Late side effects of 3T MRI-guided 3D high-dose rate brachytherapy of cervical cancer: institutional experiences. Strahlenther Onkol 195(11):972–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. O JH, Lodge MA, Wahl RL (2016) Practical PERCIST: a simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology 280(2):576–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Agresti A, Coull BA (1998) Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52:119–126

    Google Scholar 

  17. Herrera FG, Breuneval T, Prior JO, Bourhis J, Ozsahin M (2016) [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters as useful prognostic factors in cervical cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 11:43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu FY, Su TP, Wang CC et al (2018) Roles of posttherapy 18F‑FDG PET/CT in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45(7):1197–1204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Poetsch N, Sturdza A, Aust S et al (2019) The value of pretreatment serum butyrylcholinesterase level as a novel prognostic biomarker in patients with cervical cancer treated with primary (chemo-)radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 195(5):430–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu FY, Lai CH, Yang LY et al (2016) Utility of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a parallel study of a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43(10):1812–1823

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Scher N, Castelli J, Depeursinge A et al (2018) (18F)-FDG PET/CT parameters to predict survival and recurrence in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Radiother 22(3):229–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yoo J, Choi JY, Moon SH et al (2012) Prognostic significance of volume-based metabolic parameters in uterine cervical cancer determined using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22(7):1226–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) The standardized uptake value for F‑18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer 110(8):1738–1744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Onal C, Guler OC, Reyhan M, Yapar AF (2015) Prognostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in pelvic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 137(1):40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Akkas BE, Demirel BB, Dizman A, Vural GU (2013) Do clinical characteristics and metabolic markers detected on positron emission tomography/computerized tomography associate with persistent disease in patients with in-operable cervical cancer? Ann Nucl Med 27(8):756–763

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chung HH, Kim JW, Han KH et al (2011) Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measured by FDG-PET/CT in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 120(2):270–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yilmaz B, Dağ S, Ergul N, Çermik TF (2019) The efficacy of pretreatment and after treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer. Nucl Med Commun 40(3):219–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Son SH, Jeong SY, Chong GO et al (2018) Prognostic value of pretreatment metabolic PET parameters in cervical cancer patients with metabolic complete response after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med 43(9):e296–e303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hong JH, Min KJ, Lee JK et al (2016) Prognostic value of the sum of metabolic tumor volume of primary tumor and lymph nodes using 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with cervical cancer. Medicine 95(9):e2992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hong JH, Tsai CS, Lai CH et al (2004) Recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of cervix after definitive radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60(1):249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rose PG, Java J, Whitney CW et al (2015) Nomograms predicting progression-free survival, overall survival, and pelvic recurrence in locally advanced cervical cancer developed from an analysis of identifiable prognostic factors in patients from NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group randomized trials of chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 33(19):2136–2142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA 298(19):2289–2295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Siva S, Deb S, Young RJ et al (2015) 18F‑FDG PET/CT following chemoradiation of uterine cervix cancer provides powerful prognostic stratification independent of HPV status: a prospective cohort of 105 women with mature survival data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42(12):1825–1832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D (2009) The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 50(1):64S–73S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ferrandina G, Petrillo M, Restaino G et al (2012) Can radicality of surgery be safely modulated on the basis of MRI and PET/CT imaging in locally advanced cervical cancer patients administered preoperative treatment? Cancer 118(2):392–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Su TP, Lin G, Huang YT et al (2018) Comparison of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for posttherapy evaluation in patients with advanced cervical cancer receiving definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45(5):727–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Crandall JP, Fraum TJ, Lee M et al (2020) Repeatability of 18F‑FDG PET radiomic features in cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.247999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oh D, Lee JE, Huh SJ et al (2013) Prognostic significance of tumor response as assessed by sequential 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography during concurrent chemoradiation therapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87(3):549–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Xu C, Sun H, Du S, Xin J (2019) Early treatment response of patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: an evaluation of integrated multi-parameter PET-IVIM MR. Eur J Radiol 117:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gao S, Du S, Lu Z et al (2020) Multiparametric PET/MR (PET and MR-IVIM) for the evaluation of early treatment response and prediction of tumor recurrence in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Eur Radiol 30(2):1191–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by UNCE/MED/006 Charles University—Center of Clinical and Experimental Liver Surgery, and from the European Regional Development Fund Project “Application of Modern Technologies in Medicine and Industry” (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_048/0007280)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital in Pilsen, alej Svobody 80, 30460, Pilsen, Czech Republic

    Radovan Vojtíšek MD, PhD, Petra Kovářová MD, Emília Sukovská MD &  Jindřich Fínek MD, PhD, MHA

  2. Department of Imaging Methods, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital in Pilsen, alej Svobody 80, 30460, Pilsen, Czech Republic

    Jan Baxa MD, PhD, Amira Almortaza MD, Radek Tupý MD, MSc., PhD &  Jiří Ferda MD, PhD

  3. Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 76, 32300, Pilsen, Czech Republic

    Petr Hošek MSc., PhD

Authors
  1. Radovan Vojtíšek MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Baxa MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Petra Kovářová MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amira Almortaza MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Petr Hošek MSc., PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emília Sukovská MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Radek Tupý MD, MSc., PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jiří Ferda MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jindřich Fínek MD, PhD, MHA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radovan Vojtíšek MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

R. Vojtíšek, J. Baxa, P. Kovářová, A. Almortaza, P. Hošek, E. Sukovská, R. Tupý, J. Ferda and J. Fínek declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This is an observational study. The local ethics committee confirmed that no ethical approval is required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vojtíšek, R., Baxa, J., Kovářová, P. et al. Prediction of treatment response in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer using midtreatment PET/MRI during concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 197, 494–504 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-020-01740-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-020-01740-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation