PURPOSE: We evaluated the prognostic impact of volume-based assessment by (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We reviewed 194 consecutive patients with stage IIIA NSCLC treated with surgical resection (surgical group) and 115 patients treated with nonsurgical therapy (nonsurgical group: 50 stage IIIA, 65 stage IIIB). Metabolic tumour volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of primary tumours were measured using pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The prognostic significance of PET parameters and other clinical variables was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. To evaluate and compare the predictive performance of PET parameters, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used. RESULTS: In the Cox proportional hazards models, MTV (HR=1.27 for a doubling of MTV, P=0.008) and TLG (HR=1.22 for a doubling of TLG, P=0.035) were significantly associated with an increased risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, histological cell type, T stage, N stage, and treatment variables in the surgical group. SUVmax was not a significant prognostic factor in either the surgical or nonsurgical group. In the time-dependent ROC curve analysis, volume-based PET parameters predicted survival better than SUVmax. CONCLUSION: The volume-based PET parameters (MTV and TLG) are significant prognostic factors for survival independent of tumour stage and better prognostic imaging biomarkers than SUVmax in patients with stage IIIA NSCLC after surgical resection.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the prognostic impact of volume-based assessment by (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We reviewed 194 consecutive patients with stage IIIA NSCLC treated with surgical resection (surgical group) and 115 patients treated with nonsurgical therapy (nonsurgical group: 50 stage IIIA, 65 stage IIIB). Metabolic tumour volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of primary tumours were measured using pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The prognostic significance of PET parameters and other clinical variables was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. To evaluate and compare the predictive performance of PET parameters, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used. RESULTS: In the Cox proportional hazards models, MTV (HR=1.27 for a doubling of MTV, P=0.008) and TLG (HR=1.22 for a doubling of TLG, P=0.035) were significantly associated with an increased risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, histological cell type, T stage, N stage, and treatment variables in the surgical group. SUVmax was not a significant prognostic factor in either the surgical or nonsurgical group. In the time-dependent ROC curve analysis, volume-based PET parameters predicted survival better than SUVmax. CONCLUSION: The volume-based PET parameters (MTV and TLG) are significant prognostic factors for survival independent of tumour stage and better prognostic imaging biomarkers than SUVmax in patients with stage IIIA NSCLC after surgical resection.
Authors: A G Sorensen; S Patel; C Harmath; S Bridges; J Synnott; A Sievers; Y H Yoon; E J Lee; M C Yang; R F Lewis; G J Harris; M Lev; P W Schaefer; B R Buchbinder; G Barest; K Yamada; J Ponzo; H Y Kwon; J Gemmete; J Farkas; A L Tievsky; R B Ziegler; M R Salhus; R Weisskoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Gerold Bepler; Matthew G Blum; Andrew Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Thierry Jahan; Mohammad Jahanzeb; David H Johnson; Anne Kessinger; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Quynh-Thu Le; Inga T Lennes; Renato Martins; Janis O'Malley; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; George R Simon; Scott J Swanson; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Seung Hyup Hyun; Joon Young Choi; Young Mog Shim; Kwhanmien Kim; Su Jin Lee; Young Seok Cho; Ji Young Lee; Kyung-Han Lee; Byung-Tae Kim Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Herbert Decaluwé; Paul De Leyn; Johan Vansteenkiste; Christophe Dooms; Dirk Van Raemdonck; Philippe Nafteux; Willy Coosemans; Toni Lerut Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Sigrid G Stroobants; Isabelle D'Hoore; Christophe Dooms; Paul R De Leyn; Patrick J Dupont; Walter De Wever; Tjibbe De Groot; Johny A Verschakelen; Luc A Mortelmans; Johan F Vansteenkiste Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Arthur Cho; Jae-Hoon Lee; Mijin Yun; Jong Doo Lee; Young Tae Kim; Won Jun Kang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J H Rasmussen; B M Fischer; M C Aznar; A E Hansen; I R Vogelius; J Löfgren; F L Andersen; A Loft; A Kjaer; L Højgaard; L Specht Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Chenpeng Zhang; Chuanhong Liao; Bill C Penney; Daniel E Appelbaum; Cassie A Simon; Yonglin Pu Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Fenghai Duan; Mitchell Machtay; Jeremy J Gorelick; Bradley S Snyder; Abass Alavi; Barry A Siegel; Douglas W Johnson; Jeffrey D Bradley; Albert DeNittis; Maria Werner-Wasik Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 13.506