PURPOSE: Efficacy of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for determining neoadjuvant therapy response in rectal cancer is not well established. We sought to evaluate serial FDG-PET/CT for assessing tumor down-staging, percentage residual tumor, and complete response or microscopic disease with rectal cancer neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, definitive surgical resection, and FDG-PET/CT before and 4-6 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment were included. Tumors were evaluated pretreatment and on final pathology for size and stage. FDG-PET/CT parameters assessed were visual response score (VRS), standardized uptake value (SUV), PET-derived tumor volume (PETvol), CT-derived tumor volume (CTvol), and total lesion glycolysis (delta TLG). RESULTS: Twenty-one rectal cancer patients over 3 years underwent neoadjuvant treatment, serial FDG-PET/CT, and resection. Complete response or microscopic disease (n = 7, 33%) was associated with higher Delta CTvol (AUC = 0.82, p = 0.004) and Delta SUV (AUC = 0.79, p = 0.01). Tumor down-staging (n = 14, 67%) was associated with greater Delta PETvol (AUC = 0.82, p < 0.001) and Delta SUV (AUC = 0.82, p < 0.001). Pathologic lymph node disease (n = 7, 33%) correlated with Delta CTvol (AUC = 0.75, p = 0.03) and Delta PETvol (AUC = 0.70, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT parameters were best for assessing tumor down-staging and percentage of residual tumor after neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer and can potentially assist in treatment planning.
PURPOSE: Efficacy of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for determining neoadjuvant therapy response in rectal cancer is not well established. We sought to evaluate serial FDG-PET/CT for assessing tumor down-staging, percentage residual tumor, and complete response or microscopic disease with rectal cancer neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS:Patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, definitive surgical resection, and FDG-PET/CT before and 4-6 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment were included. Tumors were evaluated pretreatment and on final pathology for size and stage. FDG-PET/CT parameters assessed were visual response score (VRS), standardized uptake value (SUV), PET-derived tumor volume (PETvol), CT-derived tumor volume (CTvol), and total lesion glycolysis (delta TLG). RESULTS: Twenty-one rectal cancerpatients over 3 years underwent neoadjuvant treatment, serial FDG-PET/CT, and resection. Complete response or microscopic disease (n = 7, 33%) was associated with higher Delta CTvol (AUC = 0.82, p = 0.004) and Delta SUV (AUC = 0.79, p = 0.01). Tumor down-staging (n = 14, 67%) was associated with greater Delta PETvol (AUC = 0.82, p < 0.001) and Delta SUV (AUC = 0.82, p < 0.001). Pathologic lymph node disease (n = 7, 33%) correlated with Delta CTvol (AUC = 0.75, p = 0.03) and Delta PETvol (AUC = 0.70, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT parameters were best for assessing tumor down-staging and percentage of residual tumor after neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer and can potentially assist in treatment planning.
Authors: Jose G Guillem; David B Chessin; Alfred M Cohen; Jinru Shia; Madhu Mazumdar; Warren Enker; Philip B Paty; Martin R Weiser; David Klimstra; Leonard Saltz; Bruce D Minsky; W Douglas Wong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: N Wolmark; H S Wieand; D M Hyams; L Colangelo; N V Dimitrov; E H Romond; M Wexler; D Prager; A B Cruz; P H Gordon; N J Petrelli; M Deutsch; E Mamounas; D L Wickerham; E R Fisher; H Rockette; B Fisher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: T Liersch; C Langer; C Jakob; D Müller; B M Ghadimi; A Siemer; P M Markus; L Füzesi; H Becker Journal: Chirurg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 1999-05
Authors: V Rusch; D Klimstra; E Venkatraman; J Oliver; N Martini; R Gralla; M Kris; E Dmitrovsky Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1995-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Daniel Schmid; Klaus Strobel; Jan D Soyka; Niklaus G Schaefer; Stephan K Haerle; Gerhard Huber; Gabriele Studer; Burkhardt Seifert; Thomas F Hany Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
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: R O Perez; A Habr-Gama; G P São Julião; P B Lynn; C Sabbagh; I Proscurshim; F G Campos; J Gama-Rodrigues; S C Nahas; C A Buchpiguel Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: David W Dietz; Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Robert S Malyapa; Robert J Myerson; Joel Picus; Jon Ritter; Jason S Lewis; Michael J Welch; Barry A Siegel Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-08-06 Impact factor: 4.585