PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) is an accepted treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) that improves surgical outcomes. If a pathological complete response is achieved, conservative surgery can be considered. The objective of our study was to assess the reliability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for evaluating the response to neoadjuvant RCT in LARC. METHODS: We prospectively studied 41 patients diagnosed with LARC and candidates for neoadjuvant RCT. PET/CT was performed before RCT and again 7 weeks later. A visual and semiquantitative analysis was carried out. The pathological response was classified according to the Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG). We analysed: (a) the relationship between TRG and the result of the posttreatment PET/CT scan, and (b) the correlation between the percentage of pathological response and the percentage decrease in SUVmax according to the response index (RI). RESULTS: The mean SUVmax of the rectal lesions at diagnosis was 13.6 and after RCT 3.96. The mean RI was 65.32 %. Sensitivity was 88.88 %, specificity 92.86 %, positive predictive value 96 %, negative predictive value 81 %. Of the 41 patients, 8 had TRG I (all negative PET/CT); 6 had TRG II (5 negative, 1 positive PET/CT); 16 had TRG III (13 positive, 3 negative PET/CT); 9 had TRG IV (all positive PET/CT); 2 had TRG V (all positive PET/CT). Of the 14 patients classified as responders (TRG I, II), 13 (92.86 %) had negative PET/CT. Of the 27 patients classified as nonresponders (TRG III-V), 24 (88.88 %) had positive PET/CT. Differences were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The RI in responders was 79.9 % and in nonresponders was 60.3 %. Differences were statistically significant (p < 0.037). CONCLUSION: PET/CT is a reliable technique for assessing response to neoadjuvant RCT in LARC, with a view to considering more conservative surgical treatment. The combination of the visual and semiquantitative analysis increases the diagnostic validity of PET/CT.
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) is an accepted treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) that improves surgical outcomes. If a pathological complete response is achieved, conservative surgery can be considered. The objective of our study was to assess the reliability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for evaluating the response to neoadjuvant RCT in LARC. METHODS: We prospectively studied 41 patients diagnosed with LARC and candidates for neoadjuvant RCT. PET/CT was performed before RCT and again 7 weeks later. A visual and semiquantitative analysis was carried out. The pathological response was classified according to the Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG). We analysed: (a) the relationship between TRG and the result of the posttreatment PET/CT scan, and (b) the correlation between the percentage of pathological response and the percentage decrease in SUVmax according to the response index (RI). RESULTS: The mean SUVmax of the rectal lesions at diagnosis was 13.6 and after RCT 3.96. The mean RI was 65.32 %. Sensitivity was 88.88 %, specificity 92.86 %, positive predictive value 96 %, negative predictive value 81 %. Of the 41 patients, 8 had TRG I (all negative PET/CT); 6 had TRG II (5 negative, 1 positive PET/CT); 16 had TRG III (13 positive, 3 negative PET/CT); 9 had TRG IV (all positive PET/CT); 2 had TRG V (all positive PET/CT). Of the 14 patients classified as responders (TRG I, II), 13 (92.86 %) had negative PET/CT. Of the 27 patients classified as nonresponders (TRG III-V), 24 (88.88 %) had positive PET/CT. Differences were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The RI in responders was 79.9 % and in nonresponders was 60.3 %. Differences were statistically significant (p < 0.037). CONCLUSION: PET/CT is a reliable technique for assessing response to neoadjuvant RCT in LARC, with a view to considering more conservative surgical treatment. The combination of the visual and semiquantitative analysis increases the diagnostic validity of PET/CT.
Authors: Koen C M J Peeters; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm Rutten; Lars Pahlman; Bengt Glimelius; Jan Willem Leer; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Carlo Capirci; Domenico Rubello; Franca Chierichetti; Giorgio Crepaldi; Angelo Carpi; Andrea Nicolini; Giovanni Mandoliti; Cesare Polico Journal: Biomed Pharmacother Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.529
Authors: Monique Maas; Iris J G Rutten; Patty J Nelemans; Doenja M J Lambregts; Vincent C Cappendijk; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Eric Sorenson; Fernando Lambreton; Jian Q Yu; Tianyu Li; Crystal S Denlinger; Joshua E Meyer; Elin R Sigurdson; Jeffrey M Farma Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Laura L Travaini; Maria G Zampino; Marzia Colandrea; Mahila E Ferrari; Laura Gilardi; Maria C Leonardi; Luigi Santoro; Roberto Orecchia; Chiara M Grana Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2016-03-29
Authors: Gyu Sang Yoo; Hee Chul Park; Jeong Il Yu; Doo Ho Choi; Won Kyung Cho; Young Suk Park; Joon Oh Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang; Woo Yong Lee; Hee Cheol Kim; Seong Hyeon Yun; Yong Beom Cho; Yoon Ah Park; Kyoung Doo Song; Seok-Hyung Kim; Sang Yun Ha Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 4.679