OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET performed at restaging in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who previously underwent neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with histologically proven rectal cancer classified at clinical TNM stages II and III were enrolled. Six weeks after radiochemotherapy completion, all patients were restaged by sonography, CT, MRI, endoscopy, and (18)F-FDG PET. Surgery was performed in all patients within 8-9 weeks from completion of radiochemotherapy. Median follow-up after surgery was 38 months (range, 6-66 months). RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 83% and 73%, respectively. Cox multivariate analysis showed that only two parameters at restaging were independent prognostic predictors of both overall survival and disease-free survival: pathologic stage and, especially, after radiochemotherapy (18)F-FDG PET findings. The 5-year overall survival was 91% in patients with a negative PET after radiochemotherapy versus 72% in those with a positive PET (p = 0.024) after radiochemotherapy, whereas disease-free survival was 81% and 62% (p = 0.003) for those with the negative and positive PET findings, respectively. Statistical data were further enhanced when combining the pathologic stage with the (18)F-FDG PET results: 95% 5-year overall survival in the PET-negative pathologic stages 0 and I patients versus 70% in PET-positive pathologic stages II-IV patients (p = 0.001), whereas disease-free survival was 93% and 65% (p = 0.0003) for the negative and positive PETs, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer previously treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, the combined evaluation of pathologic stage and after-radiochemotherapy (18)F-FDG PET at restaging identified a subgroup of patients characterized by good response to radiochemotherapy and a more favorable prognosis. In these patients, a conservative surgical approach might be considered.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET performed at restaging in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who previously underwent neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with histologically proven rectal cancer classified at clinical TNM stages II and III were enrolled. Six weeks after radiochemotherapy completion, all patients were restaged by sonography, CT, MRI, endoscopy, and (18)F-FDG PET. Surgery was performed in all patients within 8-9 weeks from completion of radiochemotherapy. Median follow-up after surgery was 38 months (range, 6-66 months). RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 83% and 73%, respectively. Cox multivariate analysis showed that only two parameters at restaging were independent prognostic predictors of both overall survival and disease-free survival: pathologic stage and, especially, after radiochemotherapy (18)F-FDG PET findings. The 5-year overall survival was 91% in patients with a negative PET after radiochemotherapy versus 72% in those with a positive PET (p = 0.024) after radiochemotherapy, whereas disease-free survival was 81% and 62% (p = 0.003) for those with the negative and positive PET findings, respectively. Statistical data were further enhanced when combining the pathologic stage with the (18)F-FDG PET results: 95% 5-year overall survival in the PET-negative pathologic stages 0 and I patients versus 70% in PET-positive pathologic stages II-IV patients (p = 0.001), whereas disease-free survival was 93% and 65% (p = 0.0003) for the negative and positive PETs, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer previously treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, the combined evaluation of pathologic stage and after-radiochemotherapy (18)F-FDG PET at restaging identified a subgroup of patients characterized by good response to radiochemotherapy and a more favorable prognosis. In these patients, a conservative surgical approach might be considered.
Authors: Eric Sorenson; Fernando Lambreton; Jian Q Yu; Tianyu Li; Crystal S Denlinger; Joshua E Meyer; Elin R Sigurdson; Jeffrey M Farma Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Felipe A Calvo; Claudio V Sole; Dolores de la Mata; Luis Cabezón; Marina Gómez-Espí; Emilio Alvarez; Paz Madariaga; José L Carreras Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mahsa Eskian; Abass Alavi; MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh; Benjamin L Viglianti; Hans Jacobsson; Tara D Barwick; Alipasha Meysamie; Sun K Yi; Shingo Iwano; Bohdan Bybel; Federico Caobelli; Filippo Lococo; Joaquim Gea; Antonio Sancho-Muñoz; Jukka Schildt; Ebru Tatcı; Constantin Lapa; Georgia Keramida; Michael Peters; Raef R Boktor; Joemon John; Alexander G Pitman; Tomasz Mazurek; Nima Rezaei Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anna Margherita Maffione; Alice Ferretti; Gaia Grassetto; Elena Bellan; Carlo Capirci; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Marcello Gava; Maria Cristina Marzola; Lucia Rampin; Claudia Bondesan; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D Greto; F Paiar; C Saieva; A Galardi; M Mangoni; L Livi; B Agresti; D Franceschini; P Bonomo; V Scotti; B Detti; F Tonelli; A Valeri; L Messerini; G Biti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 3.469