AIM: To evaluate the role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in: a) the selection of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer for helical tomotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy (HTT-ChT); b) monitoring HTT-ChT treatment efficacy in comparison with contrast-enhanced CT (c.e.CT). METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer referred for HTT-ChT were enrolled in the study. All patients were pretreated with induction ChT. Before the beginning of HTT-ChT treatment patients underwent diagnostic c.e.CT (CT0) and FDG PET/CT (PET/CT0) for staging. After staging, patients received HTT-ChT. Three months after the end of HTT-ChT a control c.e.CT (CT1) was done. FDG PET/CT (PET/CT1) was repeated only in patients with positive PET/CT0. PET/CT1 and CT1 were compared with baseline imaging results to assess treatment efficacy. RESULTS: In 31/42 cases (74%) PET/CT0 documented pathological uptake in pancreatic lesions, while in the remaining 11/42 cases it showed no uptake. In 7/42 (17%) patients, PET/CT0 also detected distant metastases, prompting a change in the therapeutic approach. Compared to PET/CT0, PET/CT1 (n = 18) documented 3 complete metabolic responses, 9 partial metabolic responses, 2 instances of stable metabolic disease, and 4 instances of progressive metabolic disease. In the same group of 18 patients, CT1 showed 0 complete responses, 3 partial responses, 8 instances of stable disease, and 7 instances of progressive disease compared to CT0. Concordance between PET/CT and CT response was seen in 33% of cases. In 50% of cases, PET/CT1 documented a response to therapy that was not evident on CT. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT influenced the treatment strategy by detecting distant metastases not documented by CT, thus accurately selecting patients for HTT-ChT after induction ChT. In monitoring treatment efficacy, PET/CT can detect a metabolic response to treatment not identified by CT.
AIM: To evaluate the role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in: a) the selection of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer for helical tomotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy (HTT-ChT); b) monitoring HTT-ChT treatment efficacy in comparison with contrast-enhanced CT (c.e.CT). METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer referred for HTT-ChT were enrolled in the study. All patients were pretreated with induction ChT. Before the beginning of HTT-ChT treatment patients underwent diagnostic c.e.CT (CT0) and FDG PET/CT (PET/CT0) for staging. After staging, patients received HTT-ChT. Three months after the end of HTT-ChT a control c.e.CT (CT1) was done. FDG PET/CT (PET/CT1) was repeated only in patients with positive PET/CT0. PET/CT1 and CT1 were compared with baseline imaging results to assess treatment efficacy. RESULTS: In 31/42 cases (74%) PET/CT0 documented pathological uptake in pancreatic lesions, while in the remaining 11/42 cases it showed no uptake. In 7/42 (17%) patients, PET/CT0 also detected distant metastases, prompting a change in the therapeutic approach. Compared to PET/CT0, PET/CT1 (n = 18) documented 3 complete metabolic responses, 9 partial metabolic responses, 2 instances of stable metabolic disease, and 4 instances of progressive metabolic disease. In the same group of 18 patients, CT1 showed 0 complete responses, 3 partial responses, 8 instances of stable disease, and 7 instances of progressive disease compared to CT0. Concordance between PET/CT and CT response was seen in 33% of cases. In 50% of cases, PET/CT1 documented a response to therapy that was not evident on CT. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT influenced the treatment strategy by detecting distant metastases not documented by CT, thus accurately selecting patients for HTT-ChT after induction ChT. In monitoring treatment efficacy, PET/CT can detect a metabolic response to treatment not identified by CT.
Authors: Anna M Czarnecka; Piotr Korzeń; Anna Nowak-Dement; Wojciech Kukwa; Jan Korniluk; Cezary Szczylik Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Tiffany A Pompa; William F Morano; Chetan Jeurkar; Hui Li; Suganthi Soundararajan; Jaganmohan Poli; Wilbur B Bowne; Michael Styler Journal: Case Rep Oncol Med Date: 2017-03-08