BACKGROUND: To evaluate the value of positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose and computer tomography scan (FDG-PET/CT) for prediction of histopathological response of preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCTX) in patients with rectal carcinoma. METHODS: Thirty patients with uT3 rectal carcinoma were examined by FDG-PET/CT at baseline, 14 days after initiation, and after completion of preoperative RCTX. The FDG decreases seen with PET scanning from baseline to day 14 (early metabolic response) and after completion of therapy (late metabolic response) were compared with histopathological tumor response. One patient denied surgery after RCTX. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) reduction of tumor FDG uptake in histopathologically responding compared to non-responding tumors was -44.3% (+/-20.1%) versus -29.6% (+/-13.1%) (p = 0.085) at day 14 and -66.0% (+/-20.3%) versus -48.3% (+/-23.4%) (p = 0.040) after completion of RCTX. Best differentiation of histopathological tumor response was achieved by a cut-off value of 35% reduction of initial FDG uptake at day 14 and 57.5% after completion of therapy. Applying the cut-off values as a criterion for metabolic response, histopathological response was predicted with a sensitivity of 74% (14/19) at day 14 and 79% (15/19) after completion of therapy. The positive predictive value for early metabolic response was 82% (14/17) and for late metabolic response was 83% (15/18). Histopathological evidence of accumulated peritumoral inflammation cells was associated with a minor FDG decrease in five histopathologically responding patients, and influenced the results with negative predictive values of 58% (7/12) and 64% (7/11) at the early and late time points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic response to a preoperative RCTX using FDG-PET/CT in rectal cancer patients can be correlated with histopathological response, but FDG uptake of peritumoral inflammation cells limited the results and led to false negative results.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the value of positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose and computer tomography scan (FDG-PET/CT) for prediction of histopathological response of preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCTX) in patients with rectal carcinoma. METHODS: Thirty patients with uT3 rectal carcinoma were examined by FDG-PET/CT at baseline, 14 days after initiation, and after completion of preoperative RCTX. The FDG decreases seen with PET scanning from baseline to day 14 (early metabolic response) and after completion of therapy (late metabolic response) were compared with histopathological tumor response. One patient denied surgery after RCTX. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) reduction of tumor FDG uptake in histopathologically responding compared to non-responding tumors was -44.3% (+/-20.1%) versus -29.6% (+/-13.1%) (p = 0.085) at day 14 and -66.0% (+/-20.3%) versus -48.3% (+/-23.4%) (p = 0.040) after completion of RCTX. Best differentiation of histopathological tumor response was achieved by a cut-off value of 35% reduction of initial FDG uptake at day 14 and 57.5% after completion of therapy. Applying the cut-off values as a criterion for metabolic response, histopathological response was predicted with a sensitivity of 74% (14/19) at day 14 and 79% (15/19) after completion of therapy. The positive predictive value for early metabolic response was 82% (14/17) and for late metabolic response was 83% (15/18). Histopathological evidence of accumulated peritumoral inflammation cells was associated with a minor FDG decrease in five histopathologically responding patients, and influenced the results with negative predictive values of 58% (7/12) and 64% (7/11) at the early and late time points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic response to a preoperative RCTX using FDG-PET/CT in rectal cancerpatients can be correlated with histopathological response, but FDG uptake of peritumoral inflammation cells limited the results and led to false negative results.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Rosenberg; H Nekarda; F Zimmermann; K Becker; F Lordick; H Hofler; M Molls; J R Siewert Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 3.454
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
Authors: B Michael Ghadimi; Marian Grade; Michael J Difilippantonio; Sudhir Varma; Richard Simon; Cristina Montagna; Laszlo Füzesi; Claus Langer; Heinz Becker; Torsten Liersch; Thomas Ried Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Robert J Myerson; Ilke Nalbantoglu; Changqing Ma; Barry A Siegel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.488
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