OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if a qualitative and quantitative assessment of pre- and post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) F18-FDG PET scans of esophageal cancer patients could predict for residual disease in esophagectomy specimens. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of esophageal cancer patients who had undergone CRT at a single institution. Analysis was limited to esophagectomy patients with both pre- and post-CRT F18-FDG PET scans. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV), location, and measured length of esophagus with increased F18-FDG uptake were obtained from the PET scan before and 3-4 weeks following CRT (preoperatively). The pattern of F18-FDG uptake was qualitatively assigned a category of diffuse, focal, or diffuse with focal component. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with localized esophageal carcinoma underwent F18-FDG PET/CT scans as part of their initial staging and post-CRT restaging workup, followed by esophagectomy. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 25%. The presence of a focal component on post-CRT PET predicted residual disease on univariate analysis (86% vs. 64%), and achieved significance when controlling for SUV and presence of diabetes on MVA (OR = 5.59, p = 0.028). There was no significant relationship between pre- or post-CRT SUV, tumor histology, or length of increased F18-FDG uptake and presence of residual disease. SUV and focality did not interact significantly to predict residual disease. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative but not quantitative PET imaging can help predict increased likelihood of residual tumor in esophageal cancer patients following CRT; however, it is not sensitive enough to solely rule out the presence of residual disease. Additional investigation with a larger cohort of patients is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if a qualitative and quantitative assessment of pre- and post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) F18-FDG PET scans of esophageal cancerpatients could predict for residual disease in esophagectomy specimens. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of esophageal cancerpatients who had undergone CRT at a single institution. Analysis was limited to esophagectomy patients with both pre- and post-CRT F18-FDG PET scans. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV), location, and measured length of esophagus with increased F18-FDG uptake were obtained from the PET scan before and 3-4 weeks following CRT (preoperatively). The pattern of F18-FDG uptake was qualitatively assigned a category of diffuse, focal, or diffuse with focal component. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with localized esophageal carcinoma underwent F18-FDG PET/CT scans as part of their initial staging and post-CRT restaging workup, followed by esophagectomy. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 25%. The presence of a focal component on post-CRT PET predicted residual disease on univariate analysis (86% vs. 64%), and achieved significance when controlling for SUV and presence of diabetes on MVA (OR = 5.59, p = 0.028). There was no significant relationship between pre- or post-CRT SUV, tumor histology, or length of increased F18-FDG uptake and presence of residual disease. SUV and focality did not interact significantly to predict residual disease. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative but not quantitative PET imaging can help predict increased likelihood of residual tumor in esophageal cancerpatients following CRT; however, it is not sensitive enough to solely rule out the presence of residual disease. Additional investigation with a larger cohort of patients is warranted.
Authors: S G Swisher; L Deford; K W Merriman; G L Walsh; R Smythe; A Vaporicyan; J A Ajani; T Brown; R Komaki; J A Roth; J B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: H L van Westreenen; M Westerterp; P M M Bossuyt; J Pruim; G W Sloof; J J B van Lanschot; H Groen; J Th M Plukker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J F Bosset; M Gignoux; J P Triboulet; E Tiret; G Mantion; D Elias; P Lozach; J C Ollier; J J Pavy; M Mercier; T Sahmoud Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olga Vrieze; Karin Haustermans; Walter De Wever; Toni Lerut; Eric Van Cutsem; Nadine Ectors; Martin Hiele; Patrick Flamen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Paul M Schneider; Ralf Metzger; Hartmut Schaefer; Frank Baumgarten; Daniel Vallbohmer; Jan Brabender; Eva Wolfgarten; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Hans P Dienes; Arnulf H Hoelscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andre A Konski; Jonathan D Cheng; Melvyn Goldberg; Tianyu Li; Alan Maurer; Jian Q Yu; Oleh Haluszka; Walter Scott; Neal J Meropol; Steven J Cohen; Gary Freedman; Louis M Weiner Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Haley; Andre Konski; Tianyu Li; Jonathan D Cheng; Alan Maurer; Oleh Haluszka; Walter Scott; Neal J Meropol; Steven J Cohen; Gary Freedman Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2009-07
Authors: Johannes Lenglinger; Stephanie Fischer See; Lukas Beller; Enrico P Cosentini; Reza Asari; Fritz Wrba; Martin Riegler; Sebastian F Schoppmann Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Nelson Adami Andreollo; Giovanni de Carvalho Beraldo; Iuri Pedreira Filardi Alves; Valdir Tercioti-Junior; José Antonio Possato Ferrer; João de Souza Coelho-Neto; Luiz Roberto Lopes Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2018-12-06
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