UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of partial-volume effect (PVE) correction on the predictive and prognostic value of metabolically active tumor volume (MATV) measurements on (18)F-FDG PET baseline scans for therapy response and overall survival in esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: Fifty patients with esophageal cancer treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy between 2004 and 2008 were retrospectively considered. PET baseline scans were corrected for PVE with iterative deconvolution incorporating wavelet denoising. MATV delineation on both original and corrected images was performed using the automatic fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian methodology. Several parameters were extracted considering the original and corrected images: maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUV), mean SUV, MATV, and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (TLG = MATV × mean SUV). The predictive value of each parameter with or without correction was investigated using Kruskal-Wallis tests, and the prognostic value was determined with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Whereas PVE correction had a significant quantitative impact on the absolute values of the investigated parameters, their clinical value within the clinical context of interest was not significantly modified-a result that was observed for both overall survival and response to therapy. The hierarchy between parameters was the same before and after correction. SUV measurements (maximum, peak, and mean) had nonsignificant (P > 0.05) predictive or prognostic value, whereas functional tumor-related measurements (MATV and TLG) were significant (P < 0.002) predictors of response and independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: PVE correction does not improve the predictive and prognostic value of baseline PET image-derived parameters in esophageal cancer patients.
UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of partial-volume effect (PVE) correction on the predictive and prognostic value of metabolically active tumor volume (MATV) measurements on (18)F-FDG PET baseline scans for therapy response and overall survival in esophageal cancerpatients. METHODS: Fifty patients with esophageal cancer treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy between 2004 and 2008 were retrospectively considered. PET baseline scans were corrected for PVE with iterative deconvolution incorporating wavelet denoising. MATV delineation on both original and corrected images was performed using the automatic fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian methodology. Several parameters were extracted considering the original and corrected images: maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUV), mean SUV, MATV, and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (TLG = MATV × mean SUV). The predictive value of each parameter with or without correction was investigated using Kruskal-Wallis tests, and the prognostic value was determined with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Whereas PVE correction had a significant quantitative impact on the absolute values of the investigated parameters, their clinical value within the clinical context of interest was not significantly modified-a result that was observed for both overall survival and response to therapy. The hierarchy between parameters was the same before and after correction. SUV measurements (maximum, peak, and mean) had nonsignificant (P > 0.05) predictive or prognostic value, whereas functional tumor-related measurements (MATV and TLG) were significant (P < 0.002) predictors of response and independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: PVE correction does not improve the predictive and prognostic value of baseline PET image-derived parameters in esophageal cancerpatients.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Seung Hyup Hyun; Joon Young Choi; Young Mog Shim; Kwhanmien Kim; Su Jin Lee; Young Seok Cho; Ji Young Lee; Kyung-Han Lee; Byung-Tae Kim Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David P Kelsen; Katryn A Winter; Leonard L Gunderson; Joanne Mortimer; Norman C Estes; Daniel G Haller; Jaffer A Ajani; Walter Kocha; Bruce D Minsky; Jack A Roth; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Picchio; M Kirienko; P Mapelli; I Dell'Oca; E Villa; F Gallivanone; L Gianolli; C Messa; I Castiglioni Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Marie Bieth; Markus Krönke; Giles Tetteh; Fernando Navarro; Hui Wang; Elisabeth Günther; Bjoern Menze; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ali Salavati; Fenghai Duan; Bradley S Snyder; Bo Wei; Sina Houshmand; Benjapa Khiewvan; Adam Opanowski; Charles B Simone; Barry A Siegel; Mitchell Machtay; Abass Alavi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Arman Rahmim; C Ross Schmidtlein; Andrew Jackson; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Charles Marcus; Saeed Ashrafinia; Madjid Soltani; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.609