PURPOSE: Because the tumor stage is the most significant prognostic factor for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and given that NSCLC [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) uptake appears to have prognostic significance, we examined the relationship between NSCLC (18)F-FDG uptake and surgical stage. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: One hundred seventy-eight patients with a proven diagnosis of NSCLC were enrolled, then imaged with (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography and their disease thoroughly staged. Primary tumor size at computed tomography and (18)F-FDG uptake were compared to overall tumor stage and to T, N, and M stage descriptors. Tumor uptake was quantitated by maximum pixel-standardized uptake value (maxSUV) and then partial volume corrected for lesion size using recovery coefficients. RESULTS: A significant difference in tumor size was associated with tumors of different TNM stage, T status, N status, or M status. Similarly, the primary tumor maxSUV was significantly associated with TNM stage, T status, and M status. However, we observed no significant difference in the partial-volume-corrected tumor maxSUV for different stages; different T, N, or M descriptors; tumors without evidence of spread (N(0)M(0)) versus tumors with nodal spread (N(1,2,3)M(0)); or tumors without spread (N(0)M(0)) versus all others. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between tumor stage and (18)F-FDG maxSUV, but this relationship disappeared after correction of tumor uptake for lesion size. Therefore, if partial-volume-corrected (18)F-FDG uptake is prognostic of NSCLC outcome, it is not on the basis of a relationship with tumor stage but through a different mechanism.
PURPOSE: Because the tumor stage is the most significant prognostic factor for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and given that NSCLC [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) uptake appears to have prognostic significance, we examined the relationship between NSCLC (18)F-FDG uptake and surgical stage. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: One hundred seventy-eight patients with a proven diagnosis of NSCLC were enrolled, then imaged with (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography and their disease thoroughly staged. Primary tumor size at computed tomography and (18)F-FDG uptake were compared to overall tumor stage and to T, N, and M stage descriptors. Tumor uptake was quantitated by maximum pixel-standardized uptake value (maxSUV) and then partial volume corrected for lesion size using recovery coefficients. RESULTS: A significant difference in tumor size was associated with tumors of different TNM stage, T status, N status, or M status. Similarly, the primary tumor maxSUV was significantly associated with TNM stage, T status, and M status. However, we observed no significant difference in the partial-volume-corrected tumor maxSUV for different stages; different T, N, or M descriptors; tumors without evidence of spread (N(0)M(0)) versus tumors with nodal spread (N(1,2,3)M(0)); or tumors without spread (N(0)M(0)) versus all others. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between tumor stage and (18)F-FDG maxSUV, but this relationship disappeared after correction of tumor uptake for lesion size. Therefore, if partial-volume-corrected (18)F-FDG uptake is prognostic of NSCLC outcome, it is not on the basis of a relationship with tumor stage but through a different mechanism.
Authors: Ji Soo Park; Nare Lee; Seung Hoon Beom; Hyo Song Kim; Choong-Kun Lee; Sun Young Rha; Hyun Cheol Chung; Mijin Yun; Arthur Cho; Minkyu Jung Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Stephanie Harmon; Christopher W Seder; Song Chen; Anne Traynor; Robert Jeraj; Justin D Blasberg Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Qinghua Feng; Stephen E Hawes; Joshua E Stern; Linda Wiens; Hiep Lu; Zhao Ming Dong; C Diana Jordan; Nancy B Kiviat; Hubert Vesselle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Stephen E Hawes; Joshua E Stern; Qinghua Feng; Linda W Wiens; Janet S Rasey; Hiep Lu; Nancy B Kiviat; Hubert Vesselle Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2009-11-28 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: J Scott Brockenbrough; Janice K Morihara; Stephen E Hawes; Joshua E Stern; Janet S Rasey; Linda W Wiens; Qinghua Feng; Hubert Vesselle Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 2.479
Authors: Mohit Agarwal; Govinda Brahmanday; Sunil K Bajaj; K P Ravikrishnan; Ching-Yee Oliver Wong Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Amr Elsayed M Hussien; Christian Furth; Stefan Schönberger; Patrick Hundsdoerfer; Ingo G Steffen; Holger Amthauer; Hans-Wilhelm Müller; Hubertus Hautzel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Kyung Min Shin; Kyung Soo Lee; Young Mog Shim; Jhingook Kim; Byung Tae Kim; O Jung Kwon; Keunchil Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.500