Literature DB >> 18381939

Early metabolic response evaluation by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography allows in vivo testing of chemosensitivity in gastric cancer: long-term results of a prospective study.

Katja Ott1, Ken Herrmann, Florian Lordick, Hinrich Wieder, Wolfgang A Weber, Karen Becker, Andreas K Buck, Martin Dobritz, Ulrich Fink, Kurt Ulm, Tibor Schuster, Markus Schwaiger, Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert, Bernd J Krause.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the predictive value of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for in vivo testing of chemosensitivity in locally advanced gastric cancer using an a priori definition of metabolic response (a decrease of >35% of the standard uptake value). The goal of the study was the definition of biologically different groups of patients prior to or early during induction therapy, with special emphasis on FDG non-avid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Based on our data, which was published in 2003, at least 36 patients with metabolic response or FDG non-avid tumors had to be recruited for an analysis of the group of FDG non-avid tumors with sufficient statistical power. Seventy-one patients (32 metabolic nonresponders, 17 metabolic responders, and 22 patients with FDG non-avid tumors) underwent FDG-PET at baseline. In FDG-avid tumors, FDG-PET was repeated 14 days after the initiation of chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Metabolic responders (17 of 49) showed a high histopathologic response rate (69%) and a favorable prognosis (median survival not reached), whereas metabolic nonresponders (32 of 49) had a poor prognosis (median survival, 24.1 months) and showed a histopathologic response in 17%. The histopathologic response rate (24%) for FDG-PET non-avid patients showed no significant difference compared with FDG-avid nonresponders (P=0.72). Survival of FDG non-avid patients was 36.7 months (not significantly different from FDG-avid nonresponders, 24.1 months, P=0.46).
CONCLUSION: In locally advanced gastric cancer, three different metabolic groups exist. Response and survival was predicted by PET in FDG-avid tumors. Metabolic response assessment was not possible in FDG non-avid tumors; however, due to unfavorable outcome, therapy modification might also be considered in FDG non-avid tumors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18381939     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0934

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  56 in total

Review 1.  Updating controversies on the multidisciplinary management of gastric cancer.

Authors:  Javier Lacueva; Javier Gallego; Juan Antonio Díaz-González
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.405

2.  Is there any advantage to combined trastuzumab and chemotherapy in perioperative setting her 2neu positive localized gastric adenocarcinoma?

Authors:  Yassir Sbitti; Ismail Essaidi; Adil Debbagh; Habiba Kadiri; Mohamed Oukabli; Yassine Moussaid; Khaoula Slimani; Mohamed Fetohi; Hakim Elkaoui; Abderrahmane Albouzidi; Mohamed Mahi; Abdelmounaim Ait Ali; Mohamed Ichou; Hassan Errihani
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.754

3.  Assessment of histological response of paediatric bone sarcomas using FDG PET in comparison to morphological volume measurement and standardized MRI parameters.

Authors:  Timm Denecke; Patrick Hundsdörfer; Daniel Misch; Ingo G Steffen; Stefan Schönberger; Christian Furth; Michail Plotkin; Juri Ruf; Hubertus Hautzel; Brigitte Stöver; Regine Kluge; Uta Bierbach; Sylke Otto; James F Beck; Christiane Franzius; Günter Henze; Holger Amthauer
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Interim endoscopy results during neoadjuvant therapy for gastric cancer correlate with histopathological response and prognosis.

Authors:  Ulrike Heger; Franz Bader; Florian Lordick; Maria Burian; Rupert Langer; Martin Dobritz; Susanne Blank; Thomas Bruckner; Karen Becker; Ken Herrmann; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert; Katja Ott
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 7.370

5.  Accomplishments in 2008 in the management of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Gary Y Yang; Katja Ott
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2009-09

Review 6.  [Therapy in gastric cancer. From an oncological perspective].

Authors:  H Wilke; M Stahl
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 7.  Imaging of Gastric Cancer Metabolism Using 18 F-FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Mijin Yun
Journal:  J Gastric Cancer       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 3.720

8.  Detection of gastric cancer using 18F-FLT PET: comparison with 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Reiko Kameyama; Yuka Yamamoto; Kunihiko Izuishi; Ryusuke Takebayashi; Masanobu Hagiike; Makiko Murota; Masato Kaji; Reiji Haba; Yoshihiro Nishiyama
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Multiparametric fully-integrated 18-FDG PET/MRI of advanced gastric cancer for prediction of chemotherapy response: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Dong Ho Lee; Se Hyung Kim; Seock-Ah Im; Do-Youn Oh; Tae-Yong Kim; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Gastric cancer.

Authors:  Henk H Hartgrink; Edwin P M Jansen; Nicole C T van Grieken; Cornelis J H van de Velde
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.