Literature DB >> 16118804

Value of baseline positron emission tomography for predicting overall survival in patient with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

David Hong1, Simon Lunagomez, E Edmund Kim, Jeffery H Lee, Robert S Bresalier, Stephen G Swisher, Tsung-Tse Wu, Jeffery Morris, Zhongxing Liao, Ritsuko Komaki, Jaffer A Ajani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of baseline positron emission tomography (PET) for predicting overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) is unclear in patients with nondistant metastatic (locoregional only) esophageal carcinoma. The authors tested the hypothesis that, in this setting, the number of PET abnormalities (NPA) would correlate with OS and DFS.
METHODS: The authors of the current study analyzed patients with localized esophageal carcinoma (Stages II and III) who had a baseline PET and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and were all treated with chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. The standardized uptake value (SUV) of PET avid lesions were evaluated for: SUV of the primary, NPA, peak SUV, and total SUV. Correlations were performed with baseline EUS results, OS, DFS, and clinical and pathologic response.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery were analyzed. Most patients had clinical Stage III cancer. NPA was significantly associated with OS (Cox model, P = 0.02; log-rank test, P = 0.04) and DFS (P = 0.04). Patients with NPA > 1 had a death hazard ratio of 4.49 (reference, NPA = 1). In a multivariate analysis, NPA was independently predictive of OS (P = 0.03). Alternatively, SUV of the primary tumor, peak SUV, total SUV, and EUS clinical stage did not correlate with the type of response, OS or DFS.
CONCLUSIONS: Data from the current study suggest that for nondistant metastatic esophageal carcinoma, baseline PET can predict patient outcome. Baseline NPA (> 1), reflecting the regional nodal metastases, is an independent predictor of OS. Baseline PET may become a useful stratification factor in randomized trials and for individualizing therapy. Copyright 2005 American Cancer Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16118804     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  28 in total

1.  Accuracy of PET-CT in predicting survival in patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Claire Brown; Ben Howes; Glyn G Jamieson; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Urs Zingg; Thomas R Sullivan; Sarah K Thompson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Symptomatic cardiac toxicity is predicted by dosimetric and patient factors rather than changes in 18F-FDG PET determination of myocardial activity after chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Andre Konski; Tianyu Li; Michael Christensen; Jonathan D Cheng; Jian Q Yu; Kevin Crawford; Oleh Haluszka; Jeffrey Tokar; Walter Scott; Neal J Meropol; Steven J Cohen; Alan Maurer; Gary M Freedman
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 6.280

3.  PET: other thoracic malignancies.

Authors:  Leslie E Quint
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 3.909

4.  The role of positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Gary Y Yang; Timothy D Wagner; Blair A Jobe; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2008-01

5.  Initial clinical results for breath-hold CT-based processing of respiratory-gated PET acquisitions.

Authors:  Loïc Fin; Joël Daouk; Julie Morvan; Pascal Bailly; Isabelle El Esper; Lazhar Saidi; Marc-Etienne Meyer
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  [Importance of PET in surgery of esophageal cancer].

Authors:  K Ott; T Schmidt; F Lordick; K Herrmann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 0.955

7.  Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology.

Authors:  Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Nidal M Albarghach; Florent Tixier; Olivier Pradier; Catherine Cheze-le Rest
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Prognostic value of FDG uptake in primary inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  An-Na Tong; Shao-Rong Han; Peng Yan; Hai Gong; Hui Zhao; Hui Yao; Yan-Ming Wang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 3.064

9.  Impact of different standardized uptake value measures on PET-based quantification of treatment response.

Authors:  Matt Vanderhoek; Scott B Perlman; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Animal PET for thioacetamide-induced rat cholangiocarcinoma: a novel and reliable platform.

Authors:  Chun-Nan Yeh; Kun-Ju Lin; Ing-Tsung Hsiao; Tzu-Chen Yen; Tsung-Wen Chen; Yi-Yin Jan; Yi-Hsiu Chung; Chung-Fu Lin; Miin-Fu Chen
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 3.488

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.