UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the level of baseline (18)F-FDG uptake in the primary tumor adds value to its relative change in (18)F-FDG uptake in serial PET scans in predicting the histopathologic response to systemic cytotoxic neoadjuvant treatment of patients with solid extracerebral tumors. METHODS: We performed a literature search from January 1995 through November 2008 using PubMed and Embase. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies for possible inclusion in the meta-analysis by reviewing titles and abstracts. Inclusion criteria were at least 10 patients, (18)F-FDG PET before and after therapy, (18)F-FDG PET performed with the intention of monitoring the response of solid extracerebral tumors in humans to cytotoxic neoadjuvant systemic therapy, attenuation-corrected (18)F-FDG PET studies, and studies presenting individual patient data (PET results and histopathologic reference test after treatment). Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the effect of relative change of (18)F-FDG uptake ([baseline - end]/baseline) and baseline (18)F-FDG uptake value with type of tumor and type of treatment as level 1 covariates. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (all observational; a total of 438 patients [median, 23 patients per study; range, 10-40]) were included, aiming at the accuracy of PET versus histopathology. To quantify PET, maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) was used in 6 studies, mean SUV in 7, SUV (subtype unclear) in 1, tumor-to-background ratio in 3, and dose uptake ratio in 1. The average overall histopathologic response rate was 0.47 (median, 0.50), ranging from 0.17 to 0.88. The relative change in (18)F-FDG uptake was the strongest indicator (P < 0.0001) for tumor response. Baseline (18)F-FDG was not significantly associated as a main factor; however, a significant interaction of baseline uptake and relative change after therapy was observed (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative change in (18)F-FDG uptake was the strongest indicator for tumor response, but the level of baseline (18)F-FDG uptake in the primary tumor provided additional information about prediction of response to therapy. These data corroborate and extend the need for standardization, quality assurance, and control of PET studies quantifying (18)F-FDG in oncologic treatment monitoring.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the level of baseline (18)F-FDG uptake in the primary tumor adds value to its relative change in (18)F-FDG uptake in serial PET scans in predicting the histopathologic response to systemic cytotoxic neoadjuvant treatment of patients with solid extracerebral tumors. METHODS: We performed a literature search from January 1995 through November 2008 using PubMed and Embase. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies for possible inclusion in the meta-analysis by reviewing titles and abstracts. Inclusion criteria were at least 10 patients, (18)F-FDG PET before and after therapy, (18)F-FDG PET performed with the intention of monitoring the response of solid extracerebral tumors in humans to cytotoxic neoadjuvant systemic therapy, attenuation-corrected (18)F-FDG PET studies, and studies presenting individual patient data (PET results and histopathologic reference test after treatment). Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the effect of relative change of (18)F-FDG uptake ([baseline - end]/baseline) and baseline (18)F-FDG uptake value with type of tumor and type of treatment as level 1 covariates. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (all observational; a total of 438 patients [median, 23 patients per study; range, 10-40]) were included, aiming at the accuracy of PET versus histopathology. To quantify PET, maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) was used in 6 studies, mean SUV in 7, SUV (subtype unclear) in 1, tumor-to-background ratio in 3, and dose uptake ratio in 1. The average overall histopathologic response rate was 0.47 (median, 0.50), ranging from 0.17 to 0.88. The relative change in (18)F-FDG uptake was the strongest indicator (P < 0.0001) for tumor response. Baseline (18)F-FDG was not significantly associated as a main factor; however, a significant interaction of baseline uptake and relative change after therapy was observed (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative change in (18)F-FDG uptake was the strongest indicator for tumor response, but the level of baseline (18)F-FDG uptake in the primary tumor provided additional information about prediction of response to therapy. These data corroborate and extend the need for standardization, quality assurance, and control of PET studies quantifying (18)F-FDG in oncologic treatment monitoring.
Authors: B B Koolen; M J T F D Vrancken Peeters; J Wesseling; E H Lips; W V Vogel; T S Aukema; E van Werkhoven; K G A Gilhuijs; S Rodenhuis; E J Th Rutgers; R A Valdés Olmos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Miguel Ángel Cruz Mora; Antonio Alberto León Martín; María Del Mar Muñoz Sánchez; Fernanda Relea Calatayud; Ober Van Gómez López; Ruth Espinosa Aunión; Ana Gonzalez Ageitos; Angel Soriano Castrejón Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2014-08-20
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Eric O Aboagye; Judith E Adams; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sally F Barrington; Ambros J Beer; Ronald Boellaard; Sarah E Bohndiek; Michael Brady; Gina Brown; David L Buckley; Thomas L Chenevert; Laurence P Clarke; Sandra Collette; Gary J Cook; Nandita M deSouza; John C Dickson; Caroline Dive; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; John R Griffiths; Ashley M Groves; Steve Halligan; Adrian L Harris; David J Hawkes; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Brian F Hutton; Edward F Jackson; Gordon C Jayson; Andrew Jones; Dow-Mu Koh; Denis Lacombe; Philippe Lambin; Nathalie Lassau; Martin O Leach; Ting-Yim Lee; Edward L Leen; Jason S Lewis; Yan Liu; Mark F Lythgoe; Prakash Manoharan; Ross J Maxwell; Kenneth A Miles; Bruno Morgan; Steve Morris; Tony Ng; Anwar R Padhani; Geoff J M Parker; Mike Partridge; Arvind P Pathak; Andrew C Peet; Shonit Punwani; Andrew R Reynolds; Simon P Robinson; Lalitha K Shankar; Ricky A Sharma; Dmitry Soloviev; Sigrid Stroobants; Daniel C Sullivan; Stuart A Taylor; Paul S Tofts; Gillian M Tozer; Marcel van Herk; Simon Walker-Samuel; James Wason; Kaye J Williams; Paul Workman; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kevin M Brindle; Lisa M McShane; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: B B Koolen; W V Vogel; M J T F D Vrancken Peeters; C E Loo; E J Th Rutgers; R A Valdés Olmos Journal: J Oncol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 4.375