PURPOSE: We investigated whether the whole-body metabolic tumour volume (WBMTV) measured by (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can improve the prediction of prognosis in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: We reviewed 106 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years, range 42-89 years, limited stage 45 patients, extensive stage 61 patients) with pathologically proven SCLC who underwent pretreatment FDG PET/CT. WBMTV and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) were measured in all malignant lesions. The Cox proportional hazards model was used with age, sex, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), treatment, stage, SUV(max) and WBMTV to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analysis was performed using WBMTV combined with conventional staging and tumour node metastasis (TNM) staging. RESULTS: The uni- and multivariate analyses showed that both stage and WBMTV were independent prognostic factors for death and progression. Patients with high WBMTV were associated with poor prognosis compared with patients with low WBMTV [hazard ratio = 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.31-3.39) for death (p = 0.002) and 1.80 (95% confidence interval 1.16-2.80) for progression (p = 0.009)]. Incorporation of conventional staging and WBMTV could classify four subgroups with different prognoses (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Incorporation of TNM staging and WBMTV could classify six subgroups with different prognoses (log-rank test, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: WBMTV is an independent predictor for progression and death in patients with SCLC. Incorporation of WBMTV with TNM staging can provide a more detailed prediction of prognosis than WBMTV with conventional staging as well as tumour staging alone.
PURPOSE: We investigated whether the whole-body metabolic tumour volume (WBMTV) measured by (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can improve the prediction of prognosis in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: We reviewed 106 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years, range 42-89 years, limited stage 45 patients, extensive stage 61 patients) with pathologically proven SCLC who underwent pretreatment FDG PET/CT. WBMTV and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) were measured in all malignant lesions. The Cox proportional hazards model was used with age, sex, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), treatment, stage, SUV(max) and WBMTV to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analysis was performed using WBMTV combined with conventional staging and tumour node metastasis (TNM) staging. RESULTS: The uni- and multivariate analyses showed that both stage and WBMTV were independent prognostic factors for death and progression. Patients with high WBMTV were associated with poor prognosis compared with patients with low WBMTV [hazard ratio = 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.31-3.39) for death (p = 0.002) and 1.80 (95% confidence interval 1.16-2.80) for progression (p = 0.009)]. Incorporation of conventional staging and WBMTV could classify four subgroups with different prognoses (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Incorporation of TNM staging and WBMTV could classify six subgroups with different prognoses (log-rank test, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: WBMTV is an independent predictor for progression and death in patients with SCLC. Incorporation of WBMTV with TNM staging can provide a more detailed prediction of prognosis than WBMTV with conventional staging as well as tumour staging alone.
Authors: Shengri Liao; Bill C Penney; Kristen Wroblewski; Hao Zhang; Cassie A Simon; Rony Kampalath; Ming-Chi Shih; Naoko Shimada; Sheng Chen; Ravi Salgia; Daniel E Appelbaum; Kenji Suzuki; Chin-Tu Chen; Yonglin Pu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: B M Fischer; J Mortensen; S W Langer; A Loft; A K Berthelsen; B I Petersen; G Daugaard; U Lassen; H H Hansen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: I Brink; T Schumacher; M Mix; S Ruhland; E Stoelben; W Digel; M Henke; N Ghanem; E Moser; E U Nitzsche Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-07-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ehab M Kamel; Daniel Zwahlen; Matthias T Wyss; Katrin D Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Eric Vallières; Frances A Shepherd; John Crowley; Paul Van Houtte; Pieter E Postmus; Desmond Carney; Kari Chansky; Zeba Shaikh; Peter Goldstraw Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 15.609
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: Jeong Won Lee; Arthur Cho; Jae-Hoon Lee; Mijin Yun; Jong Doo Lee; Young Tae Kim; Won Jun Kang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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
Authors: Leonard T Ong; Mark Dunphy; Amanda Foster; Kaitlin M Woo; Zhigang Zhang; Carmen A Perez; Catherine M Pietanza; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Daphna Y Gelblum; Andreas Rimner; Abraham J Wu Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 4.785