Percy Lee1,2, Jose G Bazan1, Philip W Lavori3, Dilani K Weerasuriya1, Andrew Quon4, Quynh-Thu Le1, Heather A Wakelee5, Edward E Graves1, Billy W Loo1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, CA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, CA. 3. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, CA. 4. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Stanford University, CA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fluorine-18 flurodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging has rapidly become the standard of care for staging patients with lung cancer. We evaluated the prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume (MTV), a measure of tumor burden on FDG-PET imaging, in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated definitively. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review identified 61 patients with NSCLC who underwent FDG-PET imaging for pretreatment staging. Metabolically active tumor regions were segmented on the PET scans semiautomatically to calculate the total body MTV. We determined the relationship of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with MTV in the entire cohort, and in the subgroup treated definitively. RESULTS: The estimated median PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 11.1 months and 18.9 months. Higher MTV was significantly associated with worse OS (P = 0.00075) and PFS (P = 0.00077). For definitively treated patients, when MTV was analyzed as a binary value above or below the median value, 2-year PFS was 60% versus 39.7% (median PFS 34.9 vs. 11.9 months) and 2-year OS was 79.7% versus 33.3% (median OS 41.9 vs. 18.9 months), respectively (log-rank P = 0.12 for PFS and P = 0.066 for OS). When MTV was analyzed as a continuous variable, multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis demonstrated a trend to worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31; P = 0.12) and significantly worse OS (HR = 1.53; P = 0.018) with increasing MTV after controlling for known prognostic variables. CONCLUSION: Tumor burden as assessed by MTV yields prognostic information on survival beyond that of established prognostic factors in patients with NSCLC treated definitively.
PURPOSE:Fluorine-18 flurodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging has rapidly become the standard of care for staging patients with lung cancer. We evaluated the prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume (MTV), a measure of tumor burden on FDG-PET imaging, in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated definitively. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review identified 61 patients with NSCLC who underwent FDG-PET imaging for pretreatment staging. Metabolically active tumor regions were segmented on the PET scans semiautomatically to calculate the total body MTV. We determined the relationship of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with MTV in the entire cohort, and in the subgroup treated definitively. RESULTS: The estimated median PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 11.1 months and 18.9 months. Higher MTV was significantly associated with worse OS (P = 0.00075) and PFS (P = 0.00077). For definitively treated patients, when MTV was analyzed as a binary value above or below the median value, 2-year PFS was 60% versus 39.7% (median PFS 34.9 vs. 11.9 months) and 2-year OS was 79.7% versus 33.3% (median OS 41.9 vs. 18.9 months), respectively (log-rank P = 0.12 for PFS and P = 0.066 for OS). When MTV was analyzed as a continuous variable, multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis demonstrated a trend to worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31; P = 0.12) and significantly worse OS (HR = 1.53; P = 0.018) with increasing MTV after controlling for known prognostic variables. CONCLUSION:Tumor burden as assessed by MTV yields prognostic information on survival beyond that of established prognostic factors in patients with NSCLC treated definitively.
Authors: Jeffrey D Bradley; Nantaken Ieumwananonthachai; James A Purdy; Todd H Wasserman; Mary Ann Lockett; Mary V Graham; Carlos A Perez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kenneth J Biehl; Feng-Ming Kong; Farrokh Dehdashti; Jian-Yue Jin; Sasa Mutic; Issam El Naqa; Barry A Siegel; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Trang H La; Edith J Filion; Brit B Turnbull; Jackie N Chu; Percy Lee; Khoa Nguyen; Peter Maxim; Andy Quon; Edward E Graves; Billy W Loo; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hao Zhang; Kristen Wroblewski; Yulei Jiang; Bill C Penney; Daniel Appelbaum; Cassie A Simon; Ravi Salgia; Yonglin Pu Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Yonglin Pu; James X Zhang; Haiyan Liu; Daniel Appelbaum; Jianfeng Meng; Bill C Penney Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hyung Ju Lee; Hye Joo Son; Mijin Yun; Jung Won Moon; Yoo Na Kim; Ji Young Woo; Suk Hyun Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Avani S Dholakia; Muhammad Chaudhry; Jeffrey P Leal; Daniel T Chang; Siva P Raman; Amy Hacker-Prietz; Zheng Su; Jonathan Pai; Katharine E Oteiza; Mary E Griffith; Richard L Wahl; Erik Tryggestad; Timothy Pawlik; Daniel A Laheru; Christopher L Wolfgang; Albert C Koong; Joseph M Herman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xuee Zhu; Chuanhong Liao; Bill C Penney; Feng Li; Mark K Ferguson; Cassie A Simon; Tianming Wu; Haiyan Liu; Yonglin Pu Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Gregory N Gan; Andrew J Weickhardt; Benjamin Scheier; Robert C Doebele; Laurie E Gaspar; Brian D Kavanagh; D Ross Camidge Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christophe Van de Wiele; Vibeke Kruse; Peter Smeets; Mike Sathekge; Alex Maes Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236