OBJECTIVES: To compare tumour enhancement patterns measured using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-CT with tumour metabolism measured using positron emission tomography (PET)-CT in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease after chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: After treatment, 75 NSCLC tumours in 65 patients who had stable disease on DCE-CT according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumour (RECIST) were evaluated using PET-CT. On DCE-CT, relative enhancement ratios (RER) of tumour at 30, 60, 90, 120 s and 5 min after injection of contrast material were measured. Metabolic responses of tumours were classified into two groups according to the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) by PET-CT: complete metabolic response (CR) with an SUVmax of less than 2.5, and noncomplete metabolic response (NR) with an SUVmax of at least 2.5. RESULTS: Using the optimal RER₆₀ cutoff value of 43.7 % to predict NR of tumour gave 95.7 % sensitivity, 64.2 % specificity, and 82.1 % positive and 95.0 % negative predictive values. After adjusting for tumour size, the odds ratio for NR in tumour with an RER60 of at least 43.7 % was 70.85 (95 % CI = 7.95-630.91; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Even when disease was stable according to RECIST, DCE-CT predicted hypermetabolic status of residual tumour in patients with NSCLC after treatment. KEY POINTS: • Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) can provide useful metabolic information about non-small cell lung cancer. • NSCLC lesions, even grossly stable after treatment, show various metabolic states. • DCE-CT enhancement patterns correlate with tumour metabolic status as shown by PET. • DCE-CT helps to assess hypermetabolic NSCLC as stable disease after treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To compare tumour enhancement patterns measured using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-CT with tumour metabolism measured using positron emission tomography (PET)-CT in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease after chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: After treatment, 75 NSCLC tumours in 65 patients who had stable disease on DCE-CT according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumour (RECIST) were evaluated using PET-CT. On DCE-CT, relative enhancement ratios (RER) of tumour at 30, 60, 90, 120 s and 5 min after injection of contrast material were measured. Metabolic responses of tumours were classified into two groups according to the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) by PET-CT: complete metabolic response (CR) with an SUVmax of less than 2.5, and noncomplete metabolic response (NR) with an SUVmax of at least 2.5. RESULTS: Using the optimal RER₆₀ cutoff value of 43.7 % to predict NR of tumour gave 95.7 % sensitivity, 64.2 % specificity, and 82.1 % positive and 95.0 % negative predictive values. After adjusting for tumour size, the odds ratio for NR in tumour with an RER60 of at least 43.7 % was 70.85 (95 % CI = 7.95-630.91; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Even when disease was stable according to RECIST, DCE-CT predicted hypermetabolic status of residual tumour in patients with NSCLC after treatment. KEY POINTS: • Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) can provide useful metabolic information about non-small cell lung cancer. • NSCLC lesions, even grossly stable after treatment, show various metabolic states. • DCE-CT enhancement patterns correlate with tumour metabolic status as shown by PET. • DCE-CT helps to assess hypermetabolic NSCLC as stable disease after treatment.
Authors: Lien N Tran; Matthew S Brown; Jonathan G Goldin; Xiaohong Yan; Richard C Pais; Michael F McNitt-Gray; David Gjertson; Sarah R Rogers; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: S J Swensen; R W Viggiano; D E Midthun; N L Müller; A Sherrick; K Yamashita; D P Naidich; E F Patz; T E Hartman; J R Muhm; A L Weaver Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: F Pezzella; U Pastorino; E Tagliabue; S Andreola; G Sozzi; G Gasparini; S Menard; K C Gatter; A L Harris; S Fox; M Buyse; S Pilotti; M Pierotti; F Rilke Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Hans Jacobsson; Thomas Hatschek; Michael R Torkzad; Katarina Bodén; Yvonne Eriksson-Alm; Elisabeth Berg; Hirofumi Fujii; Atsushi Kubo; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa L Chu; Robert J Knebel; Aryan D Shay; Jonathan Santos; Ramsey D Badawi; David R Gandara; Friedrich D Knollmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wang Mei; Chen Dong; Cheng Hui; Li Bin; Yan Fenggen; Su Jingjing; Peng Cheng; Sun Meiling; Hu Yawen; Wang Xiaoshan; Wang Guanghui; Chen Zhiwu; Li Qinglin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240