Literature DB >> 21456015

Prognostic significance of baseline positron emission tomography and importance of clinical complete response in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy.

Akihiro Suzuki1, Lianchun Xiao, Yuki Hayashi, Homer A Macapinlac, James Welsh, Steven H Lin, Jeffrey H Lee, Manoop S Bhutani, Dipen M Maru, Wayne L Hofstetter, Stephen G Swisher, Jaffer A Ajani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metabolic imaging is of interest in esophageal cancer; however, the usefulness of initial standardized uptake value (SUV) in positron emission tomography (PET) is unknown in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal carcinoma treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. The authors hypothesized that initial SUV would correlate with patient outcome.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed esophageal or gastroesophageal carcinoma patients who had baseline PET and endoscopic ultrasonography in addition to other routine staging. All patients received definitive chemoradiotherapy. Multiple statistical methods were used.
RESULTS: The authors analyzed 209 consecutive esophageal or gastroesophageal carcinoma patients treated with definitive chemoradiation for outcome; of these, 180 had baseline PET for additional analyses. The median overall survival (OS) for all patients was 20.7 months (95% confidence interval, 18.8-26.3). Patients with clinical complete response (CR) lived longer than those with less than clinical CR (P < .0001). The median initial SUV was 12.7 (range, 0-51). Higher initial SUV was associated with longer tumors (P = .0001), higher T-stage status (P < .0001), positive N-stage status (P = .0001), higher overall stage (P < .0001), lack of clinical CR (P = .0002), and squamous cell histology (P < .0001). In the univariate analysis, initial SUV was associated with OS (Cox model, P = .016; log-rank test, P = .002). In the multivariate analysis, initial SUV dichotomized by the median value (P = .024) and tumor grade (P = .016) proved to be independent OS prognosticators. Median initial SUV for clinical CR patients was 10.2, compared with 15.3 for less than clinical CR patients (P = .0058).
CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that a higher initial SUV is associated with poorer OS in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal carcinoma receiving definitive chemoradiation. Upon validation, baseline PET may become a useful stratification factor in randomized trials and for individualizing therapy.
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21456015      PMCID: PMC3144261          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  33 in total

1.  Genetic variations in radiation and chemotherapy drug action pathways predict clinical outcomes in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Xifeng Wu; Jian Gu; Tsung-Teh Wu; Stephen G Swisher; Zhongxin Liao; Arlene M Correa; Jun Liu; Carol J Etzel; Christopher I Amos; Maosheng Huang; Silvia S Chiang; Luke Milas; Walter N Hittelman; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-06-19       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer staged with [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET): can postchemoradiotherapy FDG-PET predict the utility of resection?

Authors:  Arta Monir Monjazeb; Greg Riedlinger; Mebea Aklilu; Kim R Geisinger; Girish Mishra; Scott Isom; Paige Clark; Edward A Levine; A William Blackstock
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Chemoradiation in the management of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Lawrence Kleinberg; Arlene A Forastiere
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-09-10       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Critical role of surgery in patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma with a poor prognosis after chemoradiation as defined by positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Srikrishna V Patnana; Santosh B Murthy; Lianchun Xiao; Eric Rohren; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Zhongxing Liao; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Homer A Macapinlac; Xuemei Wang; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  The importance of PET in the diagnosis and response evaluation of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  K Ott; W Weber; J-R Siewert
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.429

6.  The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence.

Authors:  Heiko Pohl; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-01-19       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  FDG uptake, tumor proliferation and expression of glycolysis associated genes in animal tumor models.

Authors:  U Haberkorn; S I Ziegler; F Oberdorfer; H Trojan; D Haag; P Peschke; M R Berger; A Altmann; G van Kaick
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.408

8.  Tumor Treatment Response Based on Visual and Quantitative Changes in Global Tumor Glycolysis Using PET-FDG Imaging. The Visual Response Score and the Change in Total Lesion Glycolysis.

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

9.  Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus: role of obesity and diet.

Authors:  L M Brown; C A Swanson; G Gridley; G M Swanson; J B Schoenberg; R S Greenberg; D T Silverman; L M Pottern; R B Hayes; A G Schwartz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1995-01-18       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Influence of the baseline 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography results on survival and pathologic response in patients with gastroesophageal cancer undergoing chemoradiation.

Authors:  Heta Javeri; Lianchun Xiao; Eric Rohren; Ritsuko Komaki; Wayne Hofstetter; Jeffrey H Lee; Dipen Maru; Manoop S Bhutani; Stephen G Swisher; Xuemei Wang; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Clinical tools to predict outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation: are we there yet?

Authors:  Abraham J Wu; Karyn A Goodman
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-02

2.  Confirmation of the prognostic value of pretherapeutic tumor SUR and MTV in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Frank Hofheinz; Yimin Li; Ingo G Steffen; Qin Lin; Chen Lili; Wu Hua; Jörg van den Hoff; Sebastian Zschaeck
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 3.  [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

4.  Change in chemotherapy during concurrent radiation followed by surgery after a suboptimal positron emission tomography response to induction chemotherapy improves outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Geoffrey Y Ku; Anuja Kriplani; Yelena Y Janjigian; David P Kelsen; Valerie W Rusch; Manjit Bains; Joanne Chou; Marinela Capanu; Abraham J Wu; Karyn A Goodman; David H Ilson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Potentially Curable Cancers of the Esophagus and Stomach.

Authors:  Elena Elimova; Dilsa Mizrak Kaya; Kazuto Harada; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Prognostic value of FDG uptake in primary inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  An-Na Tong; Shao-Rong Han; Peng Yan; Hai Gong; Hui Zhao; Hui Yao; Yan-Ming Wang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 3.064

7.  Association between clinical complete response and pathological complete response after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with gastroesophageal cancer: analysis in a large cohort.

Authors:  N K S Cheedella; A Suzuki; L Xiao; W L Hofstetter; D M Maru; T Taketa; K Sudo; M A Blum; S H Lin; J Welch; J H Lee; M S Bhutani; D C Rice; A A Vaporciyan; S G Swisher; J A Ajani
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  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

9.  Outcome of trimodality-eligible esophagogastric cancer patients who declined surgery after preoperative chemoradiation.

Authors:  Takashi Taketa; Arlene M Correa; Akihiro Suzuki; Mariela A Blum; Pamela Chien; Jeffrey H Lee; James Welsh; Steven H Lin; Dipen M Maru; Jeremy J Erasmus; Manoop S Bhutani; Brian Weston; David C Rice; Ara A Vaporciyan; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.935

10.  18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the prediction of survival in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Masahiko Yano; Hiroshi Miyata; Keijiro Sugimura; Masaaki Motoori; Takeshi Omori; Yoshiyuki Fujiwara; Norikatsu Miyoshi; Masayoshi Yasui; Masayuki Ohue; Hirofumi Akita; Akira Tomokuni; Hidenori Takahashi; Shogo Kobayashi; Masato Sakon
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.