PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare different analysis methods of 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data for prediction of histopathological response (HPR) to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCTx) in patients with advanced rectal cancer. PROCEDURES: Twenty-eight patients of a previously published clinical trial underwent serial FDG-PET/computed tomography scans at baseline, 14 days after initiation, and after completion of RCTx. In addition, MRI was performed at baseline and after the end of therapy. Response prediction was correlated with different image analysis algorithms comprising pure metabolic parameters taking into account the FDG uptake, volume-based parameters measuring the lesion volume in either MRI or PET data, and integrated parameters combining metabolic and volumetric information. The established two-dimensional (2D) regions of interest (ROI; diameter 1.5 cm) served as standard of reference. Changes between the parameters at the defined time points were calculated and analyzed for their potential to predict HPR to RCTx using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Additionally, the interobserver reliability of fixed-size algorithms was analyzed. RESULTS: Histopathology classified eight of 28 patients as non-responders and 20 patients as responders to RCTx. ROC analysis of the standard 2D ROI technique revealed areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.64 and 0.71 for the early and late time points. Corresponding AUCs for three-dimensional (3D) volume of interest technique resulted in AUCs of 0.75 for both early and late time points, respectively. Volumetric parameters showed AUCs ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 (early time points) and 0.46 to 0.76 (later time points), respectively. Corresponding AUCs for the integrated parameters were ranging between 0.70 and 0.73 (early time points) and 0.66 and 0.76 (late time points). Analysis of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for three different readers resulted in the best intra-class correlation values for the changes of 3D standard uptake value (SUV(3D)), for both early (ICC = 0.96) and late (ICC = 0.96) time points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes that 3D-based approaches for assessing SUV values consistently belonged to the group of parameters with the highest AUC values for prediction of HPR to neoadjuvant RCTx in patients with rectal cancer. MRI was not a good predictor for therapy response; hence, the MRI information derived from combined anatomic and metabolic parameters showed unsatisfying results too.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare different analysis methods of 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data for prediction of histopathological response (HPR) to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCTx) in patients with advanced rectal cancer. PROCEDURES: Twenty-eight patients of a previously published clinical trial underwent serial FDG-PET/computed tomography scans at baseline, 14 days after initiation, and after completion of RCTx. In addition, MRI was performed at baseline and after the end of therapy. Response prediction was correlated with different image analysis algorithms comprising pure metabolic parameters taking into account the FDG uptake, volume-based parameters measuring the lesion volume in either MRI or PET data, and integrated parameters combining metabolic and volumetric information. The established two-dimensional (2D) regions of interest (ROI; diameter 1.5 cm) served as standard of reference. Changes between the parameters at the defined time points were calculated and analyzed for their potential to predict HPR to RCTx using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Additionally, the interobserver reliability of fixed-size algorithms was analyzed. RESULTS: Histopathology classified eight of 28 patients as non-responders and 20 patients as responders to RCTx. ROC analysis of the standard 2D ROI technique revealed areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.64 and 0.71 for the early and late time points. Corresponding AUCs for three-dimensional (3D) volume of interest technique resulted in AUCs of 0.75 for both early and late time points, respectively. Volumetric parameters showed AUCs ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 (early time points) and 0.46 to 0.76 (later time points), respectively. Corresponding AUCs for the integrated parameters were ranging between 0.70 and 0.73 (early time points) and 0.66 and 0.76 (late time points). Analysis of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for three different readers resulted in the best intra-class correlation values for the changes of 3D standard uptake value (SUV(3D)), for both early (ICC = 0.96) and late (ICC = 0.96) time points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes that 3D-based approaches for assessing SUV values consistently belonged to the group of parameters with the highest AUC values for prediction of HPR to neoadjuvant RCTx in patients with rectal cancer. MRI was not a good predictor for therapy response; hence, the MRI information derived from combined anatomic and metabolic parameters showed unsatisfying results too.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 1999-05
Authors: Katja Ott; Ken Herrmann; Florian Lordick; Hinrich Wieder; Wolfgang A Weber; Karen Becker; Andreas K Buck; Martin Dobritz; Ulrich Fink; Kurt Ulm; Tibor Schuster; Markus Schwaiger; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert; Bernd J Krause Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L F de Geus-Oei; H W M van Laarhoven; E P Visser; R Hermsen; B A van Hoorn; Y J L Kamm; P F M Krabbe; F H M Corstens; C J A Punt; W J G Oyen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jose G Guillem; Harvey G Moore; Timothy Akhurst; David S Klimstra; Leyo Ruo; Madhu Mazumdar; Bruce D Minsky; Leonard Saltz; W Douglas Wong; Steven Larson Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Robert J Myerson; Ilke Nalbantoglu; Changqing Ma; Barry A Siegel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Matthias R Benz; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; William D Tap; Sarah M Dry; Tibor Schuster; Jeff J Eckardt; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lisa A Min; Francesca Castagnoli; Wouter V Vogel; Jisk P Vellenga; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Regina G H Beets Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 3.629