Literature DB >> 18824709

Computed tomography response, but not positron emission tomography scan response, predicts survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer.

Tawee Tanvetyanon1, Edward A Eikman, Eric Sommers, Lary Robinson, David Boulware, Gerold Bepler.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tumor response is considered a surrogate marker of survival. We investigated whether tumor response based on computed tomography (CT) scan or whole-body [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) scan after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is prognostic of survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two consecutive phase II clinical trials were jointly analyzed. Patients underwent CT and PET scans before and after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by surgery.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. Patients with a partial or complete response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors categories (n = 33) had a better overall survival than those with stable or progressive disease (n = 56; median survival time, not reached v 36 months, respectively; P = .04). Of all patients, those with response in the highest quartile had 1- and 2-year survival rates of 100% and 81%, respectively, compared with 77% and 61%, respectively, among patients in the lowest quartile. However, on the basis of visual analysis of PET scan, patients with a metabolic response (n = 28) had no significant difference in survival compared with patients without response (n = 61; median survival time, 35.6 months v not reached, respectively; P = .94). In addition, on the basis of a semiquantitative analysis of PET scan, using at least 30% reduction in tumor metabolism as a response (n = 59), we also found no significant difference in survival among those with or without response.
CONCLUSION: Among patients with resectable NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we found no evidence that tumor response by PET scan after chemotherapy is prognostic of survival; however, response by CT scan was associated with better survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18824709     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.9383

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  20 in total

1.  Multidisciplinary consensus statement on the clinical management of patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  M Majem; J Hernández-Hernández; F Hernando-Trancho; N Rodríguez de Dios; A Sotoca; J C Trujillo-Reyes; I Vollmer; R Delgado-Bolton; M Provencio
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  [Conventional and CT diagnostics of bronchial carcinoma].

Authors:  C Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  The use and misuse of positron emission tomography in lung cancer evaluation.

Authors:  Ching-Fei Chang; Afshin Rashtian; Michael K Gould
Journal:  Clin Chest Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.878

4.  Agreement on Major Pathological Response in NSCLC Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Annikka Weissferdt; Apar Pataer; Ara A Vaporciyan; Arlene M Correa; Boris Sepesi; Cesar A Moran; Ignacio I Wistuba; Jack A Roth; Jitesh Baban Shewale; John V Heymach; Neda Kalhor; Tina Cascone; Wayne L Hofstetter; J Jack Lee; Stephen G Swisher
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 4.785

5.  Adaptive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by (18)F-FDG PET in Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers: The NEOSCAN Trial.

Authors:  Jamie E Chaft; Mark Dunphy; Jarushka Naidoo; William D Travis; Matthew Hellmann; Kaitlin Woo; Robert Downey; Valerie Rusch; Michelle S Ginsberg; Christopher G Azzoli; Mark G Kris
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2015-12-25       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Computed tomography RECIST assessment of histopathologic response and prediction of survival in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  William N William; Apar Pataer; Neda Kalhor; Arlene M Correa; David C Rice; Ignacio I Wistuba; John Heymach; J Jack Lee; Edward S Kim; Reginald Munden; Kathryn A Gold; Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou; Stephen G Swisher; Jeremy J Erasmus
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 15.609

7.  Variance of SUVs for FDG-PET/CT is greater in clinical practice than under ideal study settings.

Authors:  Virendra Kumar; Kavindra Nath; Claudia G Berman; Jongphil Kim; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Alberto A Chiappori; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Edward A Eikman
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 7.794

Review 8.  Present and future roles of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of lung cancer.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Hiroshi Doi; Tomonori Kanda; Tomohiko Yamane; Tetsuya Tsujikawa; Hayato Kaida; Yukihisa Tamaki; Kozo Kuribayashi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.374

9.  Utility of Routine PET Imaging to Predict Response and Survival After Induction Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Stephen A Barnett; Robert J Downey; Junting Zheng; Gabriel Plourde; Ronglai Shen; Jamie Chaft; Timothy Akhurst; Bernard J Park; Valerie W Rusch
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Prognostic implications of volume-based measurements on FDG PET/CT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy.

Authors:  Michael Soussan; Kader Chouahnia; Jacques-Antoine Maisonobe; Marouane Boubaya; Véronique Eder; Jean-François Morère; Irène Buvat
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.