Literature DB >> 21233607

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for evaluating early response during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer.

Mark van Heijl1, Jikke M Omloo, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen, Otto S Hoekstra, Ronald Boellaard, Patrick M Bossuyt, Olivier R Busch, Hugo W Tilanus, Maarten C Hulshof, Ate van der Gaast, Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen, Han J Bonenkamp, John Th Plukker, Miguel A Cuesta, Fiebo J Ten Kate, Jan Pruim, Herman van Dekken, Jacques J Bergman, Gerrit W Sloof, J Jan van Lanschot.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery can improve survival in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer, but not all patients respond. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been proposed to identify nonresponders early during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether FDG-PET could differentiate between responding and nonresponding esophageal tumors early in the course of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
METHODS: This clinical trial comprised serial FDG-PET before and 14 days after start of chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal carcinoma. Histopathologic responders were defined as patients with no or less than 10% viable tumor cells (Mandard score on resection specimen). PET response was measured using the standardized uptake value (SUV). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the ability of SUV in distinguishing between histopathologic responders and nonresponders.
RESULTS: In 100 included patients, 64 were histopathologic responders. The median SUV decrease 14 days after the start of therapy was 30.9% for histopathologic responders and 1.7% for nonresponders (P = 0.001). In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.60-0.82). Using a 0% SUV decrease cutoff value, PET correctly identified 58 of 64 responders (sensitivity 91%) and 18 of 36 nonresponders (specificity 50%). The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 76% and 75%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: SUV decrease 14 days after the start of chemoradiotherapy was significantly associated with histopathologic tumor response, but its accuracy in detecting nonresponders was too low to justify the clinical use of FDG-PET for early discontinuation of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21233607     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f66596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  32 in total

1.  Inclusion of PET-CT into planning of primary or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy of esophageal cancer improves prognosis.

Authors:  Jan-Christopher Metzger; Daniel Wollschläger; Matthias Miederer; Peter Vaupel; Markus Moehler; Heinz Schmidberger; Arnulf Mayer
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Modeling the cost-effectiveness of strategies for treating esophageal adenocarcinoma and high-grade dysplasia.

Authors:  Louisa G Gordon; Nicholas G Hirst; George C Mayne; David I Watson; Timothy Bright; Wang Cai; Andrew P Barbour; Bernard M Smithers; David C Whiteman; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 3.  [Squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus].

Authors:  K Ott; L Sisic; M Büchler
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 4.  Neoadjuvant treatment for advanced esophageal cancer: response assessment before surgery and how to predict response to chemoradiation before starting treatment.

Authors:  Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher; Matthias Schmidt; Ute Warnecke-Eberz
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.087

5.  Prognostic and predictive values of interim 18F-FDG PET during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sangwon Han; Yong-Il Kim; Sungmin Woo; Tae-Hyung Kim; Jin-Sook Ryu
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.668

Review 6.  Current strategies in chemoradiation for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Shane Lloyd; Bryan W Chang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2014-06

Review 7.  [Importance of PET in surgery of esophageal cancer].

Authors:  K Ott; T Schmidt; F Lordick; K Herrmann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 8.  State-of-the-art molecular imaging in esophageal cancer management: implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Jolinta Lin; Seth Kligerman; Rakhi Goel; Payam Sajedi; Mohan Suntharalingam; Michael D Chuong
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-02

9.  18-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission computed tomography as predictive of response after chemoradiation in oesophageal cancer patients.

Authors:  Elena Elimova; Xuemei Wang; Elba Etchebehere; Hironori Shiozaki; Yusuke Shimodaira; Roopma Wadhwa; Venkatram Planjery; Nikolaos Charalampakis; Mariela A Blum; Wayne Hofstetter; Jeff H Lee; Brian R Weston; Manoop S Bhutani; Jane E Rogers; Dipen Maru; Heath D Skinner; Homer A Macapinlac; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Predicting tumour response to chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer by early interim 18F-FDG PET: where do we stand and where should we go?

Authors:  Robert M Kwee; Roy F A Vliegen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.