Literature DB >> 17680242

Prediction of tumor response by FDG-PET: comparison of the accuracy of single and sequential studies in patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction.

Hinrich A Wieder1, Katja Ott, Florian Lordick, Karen Becker, Alexander Stahl, Ken Herrmann, Ulrich Fink, Jörg Rüdiger Siewert, Markus Schwaiger, Wolfgang A Weber.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Positron-emission-tomography with the glucose analog fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) has shown encouraging results for prediction of tumor response to chemotherapy. However, there is no consensus as to what time after initiation of therapy FDG-PET should be performed. To address this question we studied the time course of changes in tumor FDG-uptake in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) treated with preoperative chemotherapy.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with AEG were included and underwent FDG-PET prior to therapy (PET1), 2 weeks after initiation of therapy (PET2), and preoperatively (PET3). Tumor metabolic activity was assessed by standardized uptake values (SUV) and correlated with histopathologic response and patient survival.
RESULTS: Baseline tumor SUV was 8.3 +/- 3.5 and decreased to 5.0 +/- 1.8 at PET2 (p < 0.0001). At PET3 there was further decrease to 3.5 +/- 1.9 (p < 0.0001). The relative decrease of tumor FDG-uptake from PET1 to PET2 and from PET1 to PET3 were both significantly correlated with histopathologic response. Reduction of tumor SUV from PET1 to PET2 was significantly correlated with survival (p = 0.03) and there was a similar trend for changes from PET1 to PET3 (p = 0.09). In contrast, absolute SUVs did not demonstrate a significant correlation with histopathological response or patient survival at any of the studied time points.
CONCLUSION: In patients with AEG, relative changes in tumor FDG uptake are better predictors for treatment outcome than absolute SUVs. Metabolic changes within the first 2 weeks of therapy are at least as efficient for prediction of histopathologic response and patient survival as later changes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17680242     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-007-0521-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  25 in total

1.  A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery to surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer.

Authors:  John D Urschel; Hari Vasan
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging.

Authors:  W A Weber; K Ott; K Becker; H J Dittler; H Helmberger; N E Avril; G Meisetschläger; R Busch; J R Siewert; M Schwaiger; U Fink
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus.

Authors:  J F Bosset; M Gignoux; J P Triboulet; E Tiret; G Mantion; D Elias; P Lozach; J C Ollier; J J Pavy; M Mercier; T Sahmoud
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-07-17       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Katja Ott; Wolfgang A Weber; Florian Lordick; Karen Becker; Raymonde Busch; Ken Herrmann; Hinrich Wieder; Ulrich Fink; Markus Schwaiger; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  P Flamen; A Lerut; E Van Cutsem; W De Wever; M Peeters; S Stroobants; P Dupont; G Bormans; M Hiele; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; W Coosemans; N Ectors; K Haustermans; L Mortelmans
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-09-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET.

Authors:  A Stahl; K Ott; M Schwaiger; W A Weber
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Histomorphology and grading of regression in gastric carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Karen Becker; James D Mueller; Christoph Schulmacher; Katja Ott; Ulrich Fink; Raymonde Busch; Knut Böttcher; J Rüdiger Siewert; Heinz Höfler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial.

Authors:  Katja Ott; Ulrich Fink; Karen Becker; Alexander Stahl; Hans-Joachim Dittler; Raymonde Busch; Hubert Stein; Florian Lordick; Thomas Link; Markus Schwaiger; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial.

Authors:  Robert J Downey; Tim Akhurst; David Ilson; Robert Ginsberg; Manjit S Bains; Mithat Gonen; Heng Koong; Marc Gollub; Bruce D Minsky; Maureen Zakowski; Alan Turnbull; Steven M Larson; Valerie Rusch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  36 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.  Preoperative 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts early recurrence after pancreatic cancer resection.

Authors:  Kojun Okamoto; Isamu Koyama; Mitsuo Miyazawa; Yasuko Toshimitsu; Masayasu Aikawa; Katsuya Okada; Etsuko Imabayashi; Hiroshi Matsuda
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Evaluation of response: is 18F-FDG PET the answer?

Authors:  Arturo Chiti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Prediction of tumour response by FDG-PET in patients with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Hinrich Wieder; Wolfgang Weber
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Neoadjuvant treatment for advanced esophageal cancer: response assessment before surgery and how to predict response to chemoradiation before starting treatment.

Authors:  Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher; Matthias Schmidt; Ute Warnecke-Eberz
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.087

7.  Prediction of tumour response by FDG-PET in patients with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 8.  A systematic review of the predictive value of (18)FDG-PET in esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation on the survival outcome stratification.

Authors:  Pascaline Schollaert; Ralph Crott; Claude Bertrand; Lionel D'Hondt; Thierry Vander Borght; Bruno Krug
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 9.  [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

Review 10.  Minimally invasive surgery and cancer: controversies part 1.

Authors:  Melanie Goldfarb; Steven Brower; S D Schwaitzberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.