| Literature DB >> 21129184 |
Kazuhiro Namura1, Ryogo Minamimoto, Masahiro Yao, Kazuhide Makiyama, Takayuki Murakami, Futoshi Sano, Narihiko Hayashi, Ukihide Tateishi, Hanako Ishigaki, Takeshi Kishida, Takeshi Miura, Kazuki Kobayashi, Sumio Noguchi, Tomio Inoue, Yoshinobu Kubota, Noboru Nakaigawa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this era of molecular targeting therapy when various systematic treatments can be selected, prognostic biomarkers are required for the purpose of risk-directed therapy selection. Numerous reports of various malignancies have revealed that 18-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) accumulation, as evaluated by positron emission tomography, can be used to predict the prognosis of patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) from 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) on survival for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21129184 PMCID: PMC3016292 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-667
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Characteristics of the 26 patients
| Patient ID | Sex | Age | Pathology | Nephrectomy | MSKCC classification | NCCN classification | Prior therapy | SUVmax | SUVmax site | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| type | grading | |||||||||
| 2 | M | 63 | sarc/clear | 3 | Yes | Poor | Poor | IFN | 15.2 | local recurrence |
| 3 | M | 73 | clear | 2 | Yes | Favorable | Not Poor | IFN IL | 8.2 | lung |
| 4 | M | 61 | papillary | 3 | No | Intermediate | Poor | non | 8.8 | primary |
| 5 | F | 72 | clear | 1 | No | Intermediate | Not Poor | non | 5.2 | primary |
| 6 | F | 55 | clear | 2 | No | Intermediate | Not Poor | IFN IL | 6.8 | primary |
| 7 | M | 57 | papillary | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | N | 4.0 | bone |
| 8 | M | 59 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | non | 7.4 | bone |
| 9 | M | 68 | clear | 3 | Yes | Intermediate | Not Poor | IFN | 5.7 | bone |
| 10 | F | 57 | clear | 2 | Yes | Poor | Poor | IFN N | 9.1 | lymph node |
| 11 | M | 75 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Not Poor | IFN | 5.3 | muscle |
| 12 | M | 58 | clear | 3 | Yes | Favorable | Not Poor | IFN | 8.5 | local recurrence |
| 13 | F | 61 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | IFN C | 4.3 | pancreas |
| 14 | M | 59 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Not Poor | non | 1.4 | lung |
| 15 | M | 61 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | IFN | 7.7 | lymph node |
| 16 | M | 73 | clear | 2 | No | Poor | Poor | non | 16.6 | primary |
| 17 | F | 32 | papillary | 3 | Yes | Favorable | Not Poor | non | 16.1 | uterus |
| 18 | M | 56 | papillary | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Not Poor | C | 7.0 | lung |
| 19 | M | 68 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | non | 9.0 | bone |
| 20 | M | 61 | clear | 2 | Yes | Intermediate | Not Poor | non | 5.6 | IVC thrombus |
| 21 | F | 56 | sarc/clear | 3 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | IFN | 10.0 | contralateral kidney |
| 22 | M | 62 | clear | 3 | No | Poor | Poor | non | 12.0 | primary |
| 23 | M | 61 | clear | 3 | No | Poor | Poor | non | 14.3 | primary |
| 24 | M | 82 | clear | 1 | Yes | Intermediate | Poor | non | 5.1 | bone |
| 25 | M | 69 | papillary | 3 | Yes | Favorable | Not Poor | non | 13.4 | lymph node |
| 26 | M | 66 | clear | 1 | Yes | Intermediate | Not Poor | IFN | 8.2 | lung |
Figure 1Four Cases with advanced RCC which original sites showed the highest value of SUV among all RCC sites and their prognosis. The patients with advanced RCCs having high values of SUV max demonstrated poor clinical courses. SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; CT, computed tomography; PET, positron emission tomography; Fused PET/CT, fusion of PET and CT.
Figure 2Four Cases with advanced RCC which metastatic sites showed the highest value of SUV among all RCC sites and their prognosis. A cranial bone metastasis showed the highest SUV among all RCC sites in Patient 9. A metastasis in thoracic vertebra did in Patinet 19. Lung metastases did in Patient 1 and Patient 2. The patients with advanced RCCs having high values of SUV max demonstrated poor clinical courses. SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; CT, computed tomography; PET, positron emission tomography; Fused PET/CT, fusion of PET and CT.
Figure 3The treatments and prognoses of 26 patients lined up in order of SUVmax.
Figure 4Survival curves of 26 patients that are stratified by SUVmax of .