Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of PET-CT in Predicting Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Positron emission tomography (PET) is an integral part of tumor staging for patients with esophageal cancer. Recent studies suggest a role for PET scan in predicting survival in these patients, but this relationship is unclear in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy. We examined pretreatment maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumor in patients treated with and without neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

All patients undergoing esophagectomy with a preoperative PET scan over a nine-year period (2001–2010) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Positron emission tomography data were obtained from computers housing the original PET scans. Overall survival was correlated with SUVmax of the primary tumor.

Results

A total of 191 patients were identified, and 103 patients met inclusion criteria. Eighty-two had an adenocarcinoma (80%), and 21 (20%) had a squamous cell carcinoma. Fifty-seven (55%) patients received neoadjuvant therapy. In the surgery alone group, a SUVmax of > 5.0 in the primary tumor was associated with poor prognosis [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.32; p = 0.007], but this factor did not retain its significance on multivariate analysis (HR 0.65; p = 0.43). Pretreatment SUVmax in patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy was not significant in predicting overall survival (p = 0.10).

Conclusions

This study does not support the use of SUVmax on pretreatment PET scans as a prognostic tool for patients with esophageal cancer, especially in those who have received neoadjuvant therapy. Lymph node status is a more accurate predictor of outcome, and efforts to improve pretreatment staging should focus on this factor.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Comprehensive Cancer network, Inc (2010) NCCN practice guidelines in oncology. Esophageal cancer. Version 1.2010. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp [accessed November 8, 2010]

  2. Skehan SJ, Brown AL, Thompson M et al (2003) Imaging features of primary and recurrent esophageal cancer at FDG PET. Radiographics 20:713–723

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pan LL, Gu P, Huang G et al (2009) Prognostic significance of SUV on PET/CT in patients with esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 21:1008–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 81:1076–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Westerterp M, Sloof GW, Hoekstra OS et al (2008) 18FDG uptake in esophageal adenocarcinoma: linking biology and outcome. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134:227–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Omloo JM, Sloof GW, Boellaard R et al (2008) Importance of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and endoscopic ultrasonography parameters in predicting survival following surgery for esophageal cancer. Endoscopy 40:464–471

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 4:875–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shenfine J, Barbour AP, Wong P et al (2009) Prognostic value of maximum standardized uptake values from preoperative positron emission tomography in resectable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus treated by surgery alone. Dis Esophagus 22:668–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Aly A, Jamieson GG, Pyragius M et al (2004) Antireflux anastomosis following esophagectomy. ANZ J Surg 74:434–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang X, Watson DI, Jamieson GG et al (2005) Outcome of esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and oesophagogastric junction. ANZ J Surg 75:513–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Medical Services Advisory Committee (2008) Positron emission tomography for oesophageal and gastric cancer. Assessment report. Available at http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/8FD1D98FE64C8A2FCA2575AD0082FD8F/$File/MSAC_35b_i__PET_gastroesophageal_toprint_FINAL%20to%20print_301008.pdf [accessed November 12, 2010]

  12. Wong R, Walker-Dilks C, Raifu AO (2009) Recommendation report—PET #4. PET imaging in esophageal cancer. Available at: http://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=43135 [accessed December 12, 2010]

  13. Palser T, Cromwell D, van der Meulen et al. (2008) National oesophago-gastric cancer audit: an audit of the care received by people with oesophago-gastric cancer in England and Wales. First Annual Report 2008. Available at http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/Services/NCASP/Cancer/New%20web%20documents%20(OG)/28010208-NHSIC-OGAuditReport-FV-HR.pdf [accessed December 12, 2010]

  14. Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G et al. (2007) Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers. Health Technol Assess 11:iii–iv, xi–267

  15. Vliet EPM, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MGM et al (2008) Staging investigations for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 98:547–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS (2006) Maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of esophageal cancer predicts stage, tumor biology, and survival. Ann Thorac Surg 82:391–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheze-Le Rest C, Metges JP, Teyton P et al (2008) Prognostic value of initial fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in esophageal cancer: a prospective study. Nucl Med Commun 29:628–635

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Makino T, Doki Y, Miyata H et al (2008) Use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography to evaluate responses to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for primary tumor and lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery 144:793–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sepesi B, Raymond DP, Polomsky M et al (2009) Does the value of PET-CT extend beyond pretreatment staging? An analysis of survival in surgical patients with esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 13:2121–2127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fukunaga T, Okazumi S, Koide Y et al (1998) Evaluation of esophageal cancers using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. J Nucl Med 39:1002–1006

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kato H, Kuwano H, Nakajima M (2002) Comparison between positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the use of the assessment of esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 94:921–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Choi JY, Jang HJ, Young MS (2004) 18F-FDG PET in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing curative surgery: prognostic implications. J Nucl Med 45:1843–1850

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Westreenen HL, Plukker JTM, Cobben DCP (2005) Prognostic value of the standardized uptake value in esophageal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 185:436–440

    Google Scholar 

  24. Choi JY, Jang KT, Shim YM (2006) Prognostic significance of vascular endothelial growth factor expression and microvessel density in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison with positron emission tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 13:1054–1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chung HW, Lee KH, Lee EJ et al (2008) Comparison of uptake characteristics and prognostic value of 201T1 and 18F-FDG in esophageal cancer. World J Surg 32:69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kato H, Nakajima M, Sohda M et al (2009) The clinical application of 18F-fluorodeoxygloucose positron emission tomography to predict survival in patients with operable esophageal cancer. Cancer 115:3196–3203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D (2003) Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 21:428–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hong D, Lunagomez S, Kim EE et al (2005) Value of baseline positron emission tomography for predicting overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Cancer 104:1620–1626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stahl A, Stollfuss J, Ott K et al (2005) FDG PET and CT in locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the distal oesophagus. Clinical relevance of a discordant PET finding. Nuklearmedizin 44:249–255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F (2006) Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 24:4692–4698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Konski AA, Cheng JD, Goldberg M et al (2007) Correlation of molecular response as measured by 18-FDG PET with outcome after chemo-radiation in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:358–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Weider HA, Ott K, Lordick F et al (2007) Prediction of tumor response by FDG-PET: comparison of the accuracy of single and sequential studies in patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1925–1932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chatterton BE, Shon IH, Baldey A (2009) Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:354–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Javeri H, Xiao L, Rohren E et al (2009) Influence of the baseline 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography results on survival and pathologic response in patients with gastroesophageal cancer undergoing chemoradiation. Cancer 115:624–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kato H, Kuwano H, Nakajima M et al (2002) Usefulness of positron emission tomography for assessing the response of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. Am J Surg 184:279–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. West CML, Charnley N (2005) The potential of PET to increase understanding of the biological basis of tumor and normal tissue response to radiotherapy. Br J Radiol Suppl 28:50–54

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vaupal P, Mayer A (2007) Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome. Cancer Metastasis Rev 26:225–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48:932–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM et al (2010) A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:310–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS (2009) Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med 50:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thompson SK, Ruszkiewicz AR, Jamieson GG et al (2008) Improving the accuracy of TNM staging in esophageal cancer: a pathological review of resected specimens. Ann Surg Oncol 15:3447–3458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al (eds) (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bruzzi JF, Munden RF, Truong MT et al (2007) PET/CT of esophageal cancer: its role in clinical management. Radiographics 27:1635–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Claire Brown, Ben Howes, Glyn G. Jamieson, Urs Zingg & Sarah K. Thompson

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, PET and Bone Densitometry, and Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia

    Dylan Bartholomeusz

  3. Discipline of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia

    Thomas R. Sullivan

  4. Department of Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Level 5, Eleanor Harrald Building, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia

    Sarah K. Thompson

Authors
  1. Claire Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ben Howes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Glyn G. Jamieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dylan Bartholomeusz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Urs Zingg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas R. Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sarah K. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah K. Thompson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, C., Howes, B., Jamieson, G.G. et al. Accuracy of PET-CT in Predicting Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer. World J Surg 36, 1089–1095 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1470-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1470-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation