PURPOSE: Dynamic PET studies with (18)F-FDG were performed in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas who received conventional chemotherapy with doxorubicin hydrochloride (Adriamycin) and ifosfamide (AI-G). The goal of the study was to evaluate the impact of full kinetic analysis and assess its value with regard to the therapy outcome based on survival data. METHODS: The evaluation included 17 patients with 29 metastatic lesions of soft tissue sarcomas, who were treated with chemotherapy consisting of an AI-G regimen prior to high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation where applicable. Patients were examined prior to onset of therapy and after completion of the first cycle of AI-G. Restaging data (n = 17) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were available. Survival data (n = 14) served for reference. The following parameters were retrieved from the dynamic PET studies: standardized uptake value (SUV), fractal dimension, two-compartment model with computation of k1, k2, k3, k4 (unit: 1/min), the fractional blood volume and the FDG influx calculated according to Patlak. RESULTS: The mean SUV was 6.9 prior to therapy and 4.7 after one cycle. The mean influx was 0.066 prior to therapy in comparison to 0.058 after one cycle. We dichotomized the patients according to the median survival time of 320 days into response (n = 6) and non-response (n = 8). The mean SUV was 7.6 in the group of responders and 5.4 in the group of non-responders prior to therapy. Responders revealed a mean SUV of 3.8 after therapy as compared to 5.0 SUV for non-responders. We used discriminant analysis to classify the patients into the two response groups. The classification of the non-responders was generally higher (negative predictive value > 61%) than for the responders. Finally, the combined use of the four predictor variables, namely mean SUV and k1 of both studies led to the highest accuracy of 90% for both groups. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate that only a multiparameter analysis based on a combination of the absolute values of mean SUV and k1 of a baseline study and a follow-up study after completion of one cycle was the best combination for a group-based analysis, into response or non-response. The quantitative assessment of the FDG kinetics in tumours should be used to quantify the "inhibitory effect" of chemotherapy and to individualize treatment. The main effect of the AI-G therapy may be on angiogenesis (k1 effect) rather than on proliferation.
PURPOSE: Dynamic PET studies with (18)F-FDG were performed in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas who received conventional chemotherapy with doxorubicin hydrochloride (Adriamycin) and ifosfamide (AI-G). The goal of the study was to evaluate the impact of full kinetic analysis and assess its value with regard to the therapy outcome based on survival data. METHODS: The evaluation included 17 patients with 29 metastatic lesions of soft tissue sarcomas, who were treated with chemotherapy consisting of an AI-G regimen prior to high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation where applicable. Patients were examined prior to onset of therapy and after completion of the first cycle of AI-G. Restaging data (n = 17) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were available. Survival data (n = 14) served for reference. The following parameters were retrieved from the dynamic PET studies: standardized uptake value (SUV), fractal dimension, two-compartment model with computation of k1, k2, k3, k4 (unit: 1/min), the fractional blood volume and the FDG influx calculated according to Patlak. RESULTS: The mean SUV was 6.9 prior to therapy and 4.7 after one cycle. The mean influx was 0.066 prior to therapy in comparison to 0.058 after one cycle. We dichotomized the patients according to the median survival time of 320 days into response (n = 6) and non-response (n = 8). The mean SUV was 7.6 in the group of responders and 5.4 in the group of non-responders prior to therapy. Responders revealed a mean SUV of 3.8 after therapy as compared to 5.0 SUV for non-responders. We used discriminant analysis to classify the patients into the two response groups. The classification of the non-responders was generally higher (negative predictive value > 61%) than for the responders. Finally, the combined use of the four predictor variables, namely mean SUV and k1 of both studies led to the highest accuracy of 90% for both groups. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate that only a multiparameter analysis based on a combination of the absolute values of mean SUV and k1 of a baseline study and a follow-up study after completion of one cycle was the best combination for a group-based analysis, into response or non-response. The quantitative assessment of the FDG kinetics in tumours should be used to quantify the "inhibitory effect" of chemotherapy and to individualize treatment. The main effect of the AI-G therapy may be on angiogenesis (k1 effect) rather than on proliferation.
Authors: Matthias H M Schwarzbach; Ulf Hinz; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Frank Willeke; Servando Cardona; Gunhild Mechtersheimer; Thomas Lehnert; Ludwig G Strauss; Christian Herfarth; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Scott M Schuetze; Brian P Rubin; Cheryl Vernon; Douglas S Hawkins; James D Bruckner; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Ludwig G Strauss; Cyrill Burger; Anne Rühl; Gisela Irngartinger; Wolfgang Stremmel; Jochen Rudi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bernd Kasper; Thomas Schmitt; Patrick Wuchter; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Anthony D Ho; Gerlinde Egerer Journal: Mar Drugs Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 5.118
Authors: Bingsheng Huang; Ching-Yee Oliver Wong; Vincent Lai; Dora Lai-Wan Kwong; Pek-Lan Khong Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Goran J Djuričić; Marko Radulovic; Jelena P Sopta; Marina Nikitović; Nebojša T Milošević Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Bernd Kasper; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Lothar R Pilz; Ludwig G Strauss; Christos Sachpekidis; Peter Hohenberger Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Florent L Besson; Brice Fernandez; Sylvain Faure; Olaf Mercier; Andrei Seferian; Xavier Mignard; Sacha Mussot; Cecile le Pechoux; Caroline Caramella; Angela Botticella; Antonin Levy; Florence Parent; Sophie Bulifon; David Montani; Delphine Mitilian; Elie Fadel; David Planchard; Benjamin Besse; Maria-Rosa Ghigna-Bellinzoni; Claude Comtat; Vincent Lebon; Emmanuel Durand Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.138