Literature DB >> 19685531

The higher the decrease in the standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography after chemoradiation, the better the survival of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Heta Javeri1, Lianchun Xiao, Eric Rohren, Jeffrey H Lee, Zhongxing Liao, Wayne Hofstetter, Dipen Maru, Manoop S Bhutani, Stephen G Swisher, Homer Macapinlac, Xuemei Wang, Jaffer A Ajani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postchemoradiation percentage decrease in standardized uptake value (SUV) of positron emission tomography (PET) from baseline correlates with overall survival (OS) and pathologic response. Analyses of dichotomized data are commonly reported. The authors analyzed percentage SUV decrease as both dichotomized and continuous variables.
METHODS: The authors assessed 151 consecutive patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who had chemoradiation and surgery. Baseline and postchemoradiation PET/computed tomography imaging was performed. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models were used to associate percentage SUV changes and OS, and logistic regression models were used to detect the association between percentage SUV changes and pathologic response.
RESULTS: A >52% SUV decrease (dichotomized analysis) was associated with a longer OS (log-rank test, P = .023). The univariate Cox proportional hazards model indicated that greater percentage SUV decrease (as a continuous variable) was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .01). Pathologic response (< or =50% residual cancer) was associated with longer OS (P = .003). Patients with chemoradiation resistance (>50% residual cancer) tended to have a higher risk of death than those with chemoradiation sensitivity (0-50% residual cancer; HR, 2.12; P = .099). In the multivariate model, the percentage SUV decrease (as a continuous variable) was the only prognosticator of OS (P = .01). The percentage SUV decrease was nonsignificantly associated with pathologic complete response (univariate odds ratio [OR], 1.01; P = .06 and multivariate OR, 1.03; P = .07).
CONCLUSIONS: The greater the decline in SUV after chemoradiation, the longer is the OS of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients. The percentage SUV decrease as a continuous variable is a better prognosticator of OS than its dichotomized assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19685531     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24604

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  24 in total

1.  Value of sequential 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in prediction of the overall survival of esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Yimin Li; Qin Lin; Zuoming Luo; Long Zhao; Luchao Zhu; Long Sun; Hua Wu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-07-15

2.  Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer staged with [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET): can postchemoradiotherapy FDG-PET predict the utility of resection?

Authors:  Arta Monir Monjazeb; Greg Riedlinger; Mebea Aklilu; Kim R Geisinger; Girish Mishra; Scott Isom; Paige Clark; Edward A Levine; A William Blackstock
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Favorable versus unfavorable prognostic groups by post-chemoradiation FDG-PET imaging in node-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Wing-Keen Yap; Yu-Chuan Chang; Chia-Hsun Hsieh; Yin-Kai Chao; Chien-Cheng Chen; Ming-Chieh Shih; Tsung-Min Hung
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Doctor, what does my future hold? The prognostic value of FDG-PET in solid tumours.

Authors:  Giovanni Lucignani; Steven M Larson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Clinical tools to predict outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation: are we there yet?

Authors:  Abraham J Wu; Karyn A Goodman
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-02

Review 6.  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

7.  Early Metabolic Change after Induction Chemotherapy Predicts Histologic Response and Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Kazuto Harada; Xuemei Wang; Yusuke Shimodaira; Tara Sagebiel; Manoop S Bhutani; Jeffrey H Lee; Brian Weston; Elena Elimova; Quan Lin; Fatemeh G Amlashi; Dilsa Mizrak Kaya; Anthony Lopez; Mariela A Blum Murphy; Jack A Roth; Stephen G Swisher; Heath D Skinner; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jane E Rogers; Irene Thomas; Dipen M Maru; Ritsuko Komaki; Garrett Walsh; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.493

8.  Association between clinical complete response and pathological complete response after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with gastroesophageal cancer: analysis in a large cohort.

Authors:  N K S Cheedella; A Suzuki; L Xiao; W L Hofstetter; D M Maru; T Taketa; K Sudo; M A Blum; S H Lin; J Welch; J H Lee; M S Bhutani; D C Rice; A A Vaporciyan; S G Swisher; J A Ajani
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 9.  State-of-the-art molecular imaging in esophageal cancer management: implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Jolinta Lin; Seth Kligerman; Rakhi Goel; Payam Sajedi; Mohan Suntharalingam; Michael D Chuong
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-02

10.  Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours.

Authors:  Christophe Van de Wiele; Vibeke Kruse; Peter Smeets; Mike Sathekge; Alex Maes
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.