Literature DB >> 20195167

Value of combined interpretation of computed tomography response and positron emission tomography response for prediction of prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.

Ho Yun Lee1, Hyun Ju Lee, Young Tae Kim, Chang Hyun Kang, Bo Gun Jang, Doo Hyun Chung, Jin Mo Goo, Chang Min Park, Chang Hyun Lee, Keon Wook Kang.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of tumor response evaluation using combined interpretation of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) for the prediction of clinical outcome and pathologic response in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery.
METHODS: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent. Forty-four consecutive patients (M:F = 32:12; mean age, 60.7 years) with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by curative surgery. Time to recurrence (TTR) was stratified by radiologic, metabolic, and radiologic-metabolic response using the Kaplan-Meier method. The accuracy of radiologic, metabolic, and radiologic-metabolic response criteria for the prediction of pathologic response was evaluated.
RESULTS: Radiologic-metabolic responders had a longer TTR than nonresponders (mean TTR, 58.7 months versus 22.3 months, p = 0.001 with criteria of >or=30% reduction of size and >or=50% reduction of [maximum standardized uptake value] SUVmax and mean TTR, 49.4 months versus 23.5 months, p = 0.022 with criteria of >or=30% reduction of size and >or=25% reduction of SUVmax, respectively). The TTR of radiologic responders (criteria of >or=30% reduction of size) and metabolic responders (criteria of >or=25% reduction of SUVmax) was not different from the TTR of nonresponders (p > 0.05). The accuracy for the prediction of pathologic response was 70% in radiologic responders, 52 to 75% in metabolic responders, and 73 to 82% in radiologic-metabolic responders.
CONCLUSIONS: Tumor response evaluation using combined interpretation of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-PET and CT was more effective than single interpretation of CT response or PET response alone for the prediction of tumor recurrence and pathologic response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20195167     DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181d2efe7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Oncol        ISSN: 1556-0864            Impact factor:   15.609


  13 in total

1.  Pathologic Assessment After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for NSCLC: Importance and Implications of Distinguishing Adenocarcinoma From Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yang Qu; Katsura Emoto; Takashi Eguchi; Rania G Aly; Hua Zheng; Jamie E Chaft; Kay See Tan; David R Jones; Mark G Kris; Prasad S Adusumilli; William D Travis
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 15.609

2.  Long-Term Outcomes of Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Definitive Radiation Treatment.

Authors:  Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; R Ryan Meyerhoff; Sarah J Stephens; Terry Singhapricha; Christopher B Toomey; Kevin L Anderson; Chris Kelsey; David Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Defining the Ideal Time Interval Between Planned Induction Therapy and Surgery for Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Pamela Samson; Traves D Crabtree; Cliff G Robinson; Daniel Morgensztern; Stephen Broderick; A Sasha Krupnick; Daniel Kreisel; G Alexander Patterson; Bryan Meyers; Varun Puri
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 4.  KSNM60 in Clinical Nuclear Oncology.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Moon; Young Seok Cho; Joon Young Choi
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-08-31

5.  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

6.  ¹⁸F-FDG PET SUVmax as an indicator of histopathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in extremity osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Chang-Bae Kong; Byung Hyun Byun; Ilhan Lim; Chang Woon Choi; Sang Moo Lim; Won Seok Song; Wan Hyeong Cho; Dae-Geun Jeon; Jae-Soo Koh; Ji Young Yoo; Soo-Yong Lee
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  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

8.  Prognostic value of post-induction chemotherapy 18F-FDG PET-CT in stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer before (chemo-) radiation.

Authors:  Julien Ganem; Sebastien Thureau; Pierrick Gouel; Bernard Dubray; Mathieu Salaun; Edgar Texte; Pierre Vera
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Metabolic response assessment with 18F-FDG PET/CT: inter-method comparison and prognostic significance for patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Jingbo Wang; Ka Kit Wong; Morand Piert; Paul Stanton; Kirk A Frey; Feng-Ming Spring Kong
Journal:  J Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-03-12

10.  Quantitative CT variables enabling response prediction in neoadjuvant therapy with EGFR-TKIs: are they different from those in neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy?

Authors:  Yousun Chong; Jae-Hun Kim; Ho Yun Lee; Yong Chan Ahn; Kyung Soo Lee; Myung-Ju Ahn; Jhingook Kim; Young Mog Shim; Joungho Han; Yoon-La Choi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.