PURPOSE: The best way to assess the response to chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced oesophageal carcinomas is not known. We used (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT to evaluate the metabolic response during chemoradiotherapy and tried to correlate this response to survival. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-proven oesophageal carcinoma underwent FDG PET/CT with evaluation of the standardized uptake value (SUV) before any treatment (SUV1) and during chemoradiotherapy after two cycles of 5-fluorouracil (FU)/cisplatin and 20 Gy (SUV2). Metabolic response was defined as 1-(SUV2/SUV1). Surgery was discussed after 40 Gy and three cycles of chemotherapy. Results of interim PET were not considered for the therapeutic decision. RESULTS: Among 72 patients who underwent a first FDG PET/CT before any treatment, 59 (82 %) could receive the second FDG PET/CT examination. Median survival was 22.2 months with 1-year and 2-year survivals of 70 and 46 %, respectively. Nineteen patients (32 %) underwent surgery. Mean SUV1 and SUV2 were 12.3 ± 6.2 and 6 ± 4.1, respectively (p < 0.001). Using a cut-off for metabolic response of 50 %, sensitivity and specificity for survival were 0.7 and 0.58. The 2-year overall survival of good responders was 62 % as compared to 27 % for poor metabolic responders. A multivariate analysis was performed, including T and N stages, surgery, histology and metabolic response: only metabolic response was significantly (p = 0.009) associated with 2-year survival. CONCLUSION: Early evaluation of metabolic response had a great prognostic value and could help identify good responders to chemoradiotherapy.
PURPOSE: The best way to assess the response to chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced oesophageal carcinomas is not known. We used (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT to evaluate the metabolic response during chemoradiotherapy and tried to correlate this response to survival. METHODS:Patients with biopsy-proven oesophageal carcinoma underwent FDG PET/CT with evaluation of the standardized uptake value (SUV) before any treatment (SUV1) and during chemoradiotherapy after two cycles of 5-fluorouracil (FU)/cisplatin and 20 Gy (SUV2). Metabolic response was defined as 1-(SUV2/SUV1). Surgery was discussed after 40 Gy and three cycles of chemotherapy. Results of interim PET were not considered for the therapeutic decision. RESULTS: Among 72 patients who underwent a first FDG PET/CT before any treatment, 59 (82 %) could receive the second FDG PET/CT examination. Median survival was 22.2 months with 1-year and 2-year survivals of 70 and 46 %, respectively. Nineteen patients (32 %) underwent surgery. Mean SUV1 and SUV2 were 12.3 ± 6.2 and 6 ± 4.1, respectively (p < 0.001). Using a cut-off for metabolic response of 50 %, sensitivity and specificity for survival were 0.7 and 0.58. The 2-year overall survival of good responders was 62 % as compared to 27 % for poor metabolic responders. A multivariate analysis was performed, including T and N stages, surgery, histology and metabolic response: only metabolic response was significantly (p = 0.009) associated with 2-year survival. CONCLUSION: Early evaluation of metabolic response had a great prognostic value and could help identify good responders to chemoradiotherapy.
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: Arta Monir Monjazeb; Greg Riedlinger; Mebea Aklilu; Kim R Geisinger; Girish Mishra; Scott Isom; Paige Clark; Edward A Levine; A William Blackstock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Val Gebski; Bryan Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Kerwyn Foo; John Zalcberg; John Simes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Daniel Vallböhmer; Arnulf H Hölscher; Markus Dietlein; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Stefan P Mönig; Ralf Metzger; Harald Schicha; Matthias Schmidt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: F Fiorica; D Di Bona; F Schepis; A Licata; L Shahied; A Venturi; A M Falchi; A Craxì; C Cammà Journal: Gut Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 23.059
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: 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: Elena Elimova; Xuemei Wang; Elba Etchebehere; Hironori Shiozaki; Yusuke Shimodaira; Roopma Wadhwa; Venkatram Planjery; Nikolaos Charalampakis; Mariela A Blum; Wayne Hofstetter; Jeff H Lee; Brian R Weston; Manoop S Bhutani; Jane E Rogers; Dipen Maru; Heath D Skinner; Homer A Macapinlac; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Rebecca Bütof; Frank Hofheinz; Klaus Zöphel; Julia Schmollack; Christina Jentsch; Sebastian Zschaeck; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff; Michael Baumann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 10.057