BACKGROUND: Studies of positron emission tomography (PET) have focused mainly on tumor staging. The role of PET in predicting survival has received less attention. We sought to assess the relationship of pretreatment maximum standard uptake value (SUV(max)) to survival in surgical patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: The study consisted of 72 esophagectomy patients (60 with adenocarcinoma) undergoing resection between July 2005 and April 2009. PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) was performed at a single center, and SUV(max) was recorded prior to any therapy. Survival was assessed at a median follow-up of 19 months. RESULTS: The median SUV(max) was 6.25. A receiver operating characteristic curve identified SUV(max) 4.5 to optimally discriminate survival. Patients with low SUV(max) (<4.5) had significantly (p = 0.0003) better survival than those with high SUV(max) (>or=4.5). Stage 3 patients with low SUV(max) had significantly better survival (p = 0.0069) than those with high SUV(max). Likewise, N1 disease patients with low SUV(max) had significantly better survival (p = 0.008) than those with high SUV(max). Multivariate analysis identified SUV(max) to be an independent predictor of survival (p = 0.0021). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment PET-CT SUV(max) independently predicts survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing resection. SUV(max) may be a valuable marker of tumor biology that could potentially be exploited for prognostic and therapeutic purposes.
BACKGROUND: Studies of positron emission tomography (PET) have focused mainly on tumor staging. The role of PET in predicting survival has received less attention. We sought to assess the relationship of pretreatment maximum standard uptake value (SUV(max)) to survival in surgical patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: The study consisted of 72 esophagectomy patients (60 with adenocarcinoma) undergoing resection between July 2005 and April 2009. PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) was performed at a single center, and SUV(max) was recorded prior to any therapy. Survival was assessed at a median follow-up of 19 months. RESULTS: The median SUV(max) was 6.25. A receiver operating characteristic curve identified SUV(max) 4.5 to optimally discriminate survival. Patients with low SUV(max) (<4.5) had significantly (p = 0.0003) better survival than those with high SUV(max) (>or=4.5). Stage 3 patients with low SUV(max) had significantly better survival (p = 0.0069) than those with high SUV(max). Likewise, N1 diseasepatients with low SUV(max) had significantly better survival (p = 0.008) than those with high SUV(max). Multivariate analysis identified SUV(max) to be an independent predictor of survival (p = 0.0021). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment PET-CT SUV(max) independently predicts survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing resection. SUV(max) may be a valuable marker of tumor biology that could potentially be exploited for prognostic and therapeutic purposes.
Authors: Henderik L van Westreenen; John T M Plukker; David C P Cobben; Carolien J M Verhoogt; Henk Groen; Pieter L Jager Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Giuseppe Portale; Jeffrey A Hagen; Jeffrey H Peters; Linda S Chan; Steven R DeMeester; Tasha A K Gandamihardja; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bryan F Meyers; Robert J Downey; Paul A Decker; Robert J Keenan; Barry A Siegel; Robert J Cerfolio; Rodney J Landreneau; Carolyn E Reed; Dennis M Balfe; Farrokh Dehdashti; Karla V Ballman; Valerie W Rusch; Joe B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Johannes B Roedl; Rivka R Colen; Nagaraj S Holalkere; Alan J Fischman; Noah C Choi; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Matthias Schmidt; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Markus Dietlein; Stefan P Mönig; Carsten Kobe; Daniel Vallböhmer; Daniel Vallboehmer; Wolfgang Eschner; Arnulf Hölscher; Harald Schicha Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Gerrit W Sloof; Otto S Hoekstra; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Gerrit A Meijer; Johannes B Reitsma; Ronald Boellaard; J Jan B van Lanschot; Carla F M Molthoff Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jessica M Leers; Shahin Ayazi; Jeffrey A Hagen; Sergei Terterov; Nancy Klipfel; Arzu Oezcelik; Emmanuele Abate; John C Lipham; Steven R DeMeester; Farzaneh Banki; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: James D Luketich; Miguel Alvelo-Rivera; Percival O Buenaventura; Neil A Christie; James S McCaughan; Virginia R Litle; Philip R Schauer; John M Close; Hiran C Fernando Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 12.969
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
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
Authors: Hyunjong Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Yang Won Min; Hong Kwan Kim; Jae Ill Zo; Young Mog Shim; Joon Young Choi Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Omar S Al-Taan; Amar Eltweri; David Sharpe; Peter M Rodgers; Sukhbir S Ubhi; David J Bowrey Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2014-05-15