UNLABELLED: The aim of this prospective investigation was to assess the association of parameters derived from baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT with overall survival (OS) in men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: Eighty-seven men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT and were followed prospectively for OS. Median follow-up in patients who were alive was 22.2 mo (range, 1.6-62.5 mo). OS was defined as the time between the PET/CT imaging or the start of chemotherapy, whichever was later, and death, with patients who were alive censored at the last follow-up date. PET parameters included maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) of the most active lesion, sum of SUV(max), and average SUV(max) of all metabolically active lesions, after subtraction of patient-specific background-liver average SUV. Comparison of OS was based on univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses of continuous PET parameters adjusted for standard clinical parameters (age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, alkaline phosphatase, use of pain medication, prior chemotherapy, and Gleason score at initial diagnosis). Survival curves based on Kaplan-Meier estimates are presented. RESULTS: Among the 87 patients, 61 were dead at the time of last follow-up. Median OS was 16.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1-23.4 mo), and the OS probability at 24 mo was 39% ± 6%. For the univariate analysis, the hazard ratios associated with each unit increase were 1.01 (95% CI, 1.006-1.02) for sum of SUV(max) (P = 0.002), 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.18) for maximum SUV(max) (P = 0.010), and 1.13 (95% CI, 0.99-1.30) for average SUV(max) (P = 0.095). For the multivariable analysis adjusting for relevant clinical parameters, the continuous parameter sum of SUV(max) remained significant (P = 0.053), with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI, 1.001-1.02). When sum of SUV(max) was grouped into quartile ranges, there was poorer survival probability for the patients in the fourth-quartile range than for those in the first-quartile range, with a univariate hazard ratio of 3.8 (95% CI, 1.8-7.9). CONCLUSION: Sum of SUV(max) derived from (18)F-FDG PET/CT contributes independent prognostic information on OS in men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer, and this information may be useful in assessing the comparative effectiveness of various conventional and emerging treatment strategies.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this prospective investigation was to assess the association of parameters derived from baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT with overall survival (OS) in men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: Eighty-seven men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT and were followed prospectively for OS. Median follow-up in patients who were alive was 22.2 mo (range, 1.6-62.5 mo). OS was defined as the time between the PET/CT imaging or the start of chemotherapy, whichever was later, and death, with patients who were alive censored at the last follow-up date. PET parameters included maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) of the most active lesion, sum of SUV(max), and average SUV(max) of all metabolically active lesions, after subtraction of patient-specific background-liver average SUV. Comparison of OS was based on univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses of continuous PET parameters adjusted for standard clinical parameters (age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, alkaline phosphatase, use of pain medication, prior chemotherapy, and Gleason score at initial diagnosis). Survival curves based on Kaplan-Meier estimates are presented. RESULTS: Among the 87 patients, 61 were dead at the time of last follow-up. Median OS was 16.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1-23.4 mo), and the OS probability at 24 mo was 39% ± 6%. For the univariate analysis, the hazard ratios associated with each unit increase were 1.01 (95% CI, 1.006-1.02) for sum of SUV(max) (P = 0.002), 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.18) for maximum SUV(max) (P = 0.010), and 1.13 (95% CI, 0.99-1.30) for average SUV(max) (P = 0.095). For the multivariable analysis adjusting for relevant clinical parameters, the continuous parameter sum of SUV(max) remained significant (P = 0.053), with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI, 1.001-1.02). When sum of SUV(max) was grouped into quartile ranges, there was poorer survival probability for the patients in the fourth-quartile range than for those in the first-quartile range, with a univariate hazard ratio of 3.8 (95% CI, 1.8-7.9). CONCLUSION: Sum of SUV(max) derived from (18)F-FDG PET/CT contributes independent prognostic information on OS in men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer, and this information may be useful in assessing the comparative effectiveness of various conventional and emerging treatment strategies.
Authors: K Yamashita; K Denno; T Ueda; Y Komatsubara; T Kotake; M Usami; O Maeda; S Nakano; Y Hasegawa Journal: Cancer Date: 1993-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Manit Arya; Simon R Bott; Iqbal S Shergill; Hashim U Ahmed; Magali Williamson; Hiten R Patel Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Nicola L Robertson; Evis Sala; Matthias Benz; Jonathan Landa; Peter Scardino; Howard I Scher; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert A Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Jeremy C Durack; Serge K Lyashchenko; Sarah M Cheal; Volkan Beylergil; Robert A Lefkowitz; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Danny F Martinez; Alex Mak Fung; Stephen B Solomon; Mithat Gönen; Glenn Heller; Massimo Loda; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Jarett L Feldman; Joseph R Osborne; Jason S Lewis; Victor E Reuter; Wolfgang A Weber; Neil H Bander; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Erik M Velez; Bhushan Desai; Lingyun Ji; Patrick M Colletti; David I Quinn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 10.057