W Zhu1, L Xing, J Yue, X Sun, X Sun, H Zhao, J Yu. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Provincial KeyLaboratory of Rodiation Oncology, Jinan, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to comprehensively review the evidence for use of pre-treatment, post-treatment and changes in tumour glucose uptake that were assessed by 18-fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) early, during or immediately after neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation to predict prognosis of localised oesophagogastric junction (AEG) cancer. METHODS: We searched for articles published in English; limited to AEG; (18)F-FDG uptake on PET performed on a dedicated device; dealt with the impact of standard uptake value (SUV) on survival. We extracted an estimate of the log hazard ratios (HRs) and their variances and performed meta-analysis. RESULTS: 798 patients with AEG were included. And the scan time for (18)F-FDG-PET was as follows: prior to therapy (PET1, n=646), exactly 2 weeks after initiation of neoadjuvant therapy (PET2, n=245), and pre-operatively (PET3, n=278). In the two meta-analyses for overall survival, including the studies that dealt with reduction of tumour maximum SUV (SUV(max)) (from PET1 to PET2/PET3 and from PET1 to PET2), the results were similar, with the overall HR for non-responders being 1.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.41-2.36] and 2.62 (95% CI, 1.61-4.26), respectively; as for disease-free survival, the combined HR was 2.92 (95% CI, 2.08-4.10) and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.57-3.64), respectively. The meta-analyses did not attribute significant prognostic values to SUV(max) before and during therapy in localised AEG. CONCLUSION: Relative changes in FDG-uptake of AEG are better prognosticators. Early metabolic changes from PET1 to PET2 may provide the same accuracy for prediction of treatment outcome as late changes from PET1 to PET3.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to comprehensively review the evidence for use of pre-treatment, post-treatment and changes in tumour glucose uptake that were assessed by 18-fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) early, during or immediately after neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation to predict prognosis of localised oesophagogastric junction (AEG) cancer. METHODS: We searched for articles published in English; limited to AEG; (18)F-FDG uptake on PET performed on a dedicated device; dealt with the impact of standard uptake value (SUV) on survival. We extracted an estimate of the log hazard ratios (HRs) and their variances and performed meta-analysis. RESULTS: 798 patients with AEG were included. And the scan time for (18)F-FDG-PET was as follows: prior to therapy (PET1, n=646), exactly 2 weeks after initiation of neoadjuvant therapy (PET2, n=245), and pre-operatively (PET3, n=278). In the two meta-analyses for overall survival, including the studies that dealt with reduction of tumour maximum SUV (SUV(max)) (from PET1 to PET2/PET3 and from PET1 to PET2), the results were similar, with the overall HR for non-responders being 1.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.41-2.36] and 2.62 (95% CI, 1.61-4.26), respectively; as for disease-free survival, the combined HR was 2.92 (95% CI, 2.08-4.10) and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.57-3.64), respectively. The meta-analyses did not attribute significant prognostic values to SUV(max) before and during therapy in localised AEG. CONCLUSION: Relative changes in FDG-uptake of AEG are better prognosticators. Early metabolic changes from PET1 to PET2 may provide the same accuracy for prediction of treatment outcome as late changes from PET1 to PET3.
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Jikke M T Omloo; Gerrit W Sloof; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Otto S Hoekstra; Hans Crezee; Ronald Boellaard; Walter L Vervenne; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Jan J B van Lanschot Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.914
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
Authors: Johannes B Roedl; Rivka R Colen; Nagaraj S Holalkere; Alan J Fischman; Noah C Choi; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Kazuto Harada; Xuemei Wang; Yusuke Shimodaira; Tara Sagebiel; Manoop S Bhutani; Jeffrey H Lee; Brian Weston; Elena Elimova; Quan Lin; Fatemeh G Amlashi; Dilsa Mizrak Kaya; Anthony Lopez; Mariela A Blum Murphy; Jack A Roth; Stephen G Swisher; Heath D Skinner; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jane E Rogers; Irene Thomas; Dipen M Maru; Ritsuko Komaki; Garrett Walsh; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.493
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: Peter S N van Rossum; Cai Xu; David V Fried; Lucas Goense; Laurence E Court; Steven H Lin Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: N S Blencowe; R N Whistance; S Strong; E J Hotton; S Ganesh; H Roach; M Callaway; J M Blazeby Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: W Lu; S Tan; W Chen; S Kligerman; S J Feigenberg; H Zhang; M Suntharalingam; M Kang; W D D'Souza Journal: J Nucl Med Radiat Ther Date: 2015-04-29