Mitchell Machtay1, Fenghai Duan, Barry A Siegel, Bradley S Snyder, Jeremy J Gorelick, Janet S Reddin, Reginald Munden, Douglas W Johnson, Larry H Wilf, Albert DeNittis, Nancy Sherwin, Kwan Ho Cho, Seok-Ki Kim, Gregory Videtic, Donald R Neumann, Ritsuko Komaki, Homer Macapinlac, Jeffrey D Bradley, Abass Alavi. 1. Mitchell Machtay, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University; Gregory Videtic, Donald R. Neumann, Cleveland Clinic and Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Fenghai Duan, Bradley S. Snyder, and Jeremy J. Gorelick, Brown University, Providence, RI; Barry A. Siegel and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Janet S. Reddin and Abass Alavi, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Albert DeNittis and Nancy Sherwin, Lankenau Hospital and Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Lower Merion, PA; Reginald Munden, Ritsuko Komaki, and Homer Macapinlac, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Douglas W. Johnson, Baptist Cancer Institute; Larry H. Wilf, Integrated Community Oncology Network, Jacksonville, FL; and Kwan Ho Cho and Seok-ki Kim, National Cancer Center of Korea, Goyang-si Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this prospective National Cancer Institute-funded American College of Radiology Imaging Network/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group cooperative group trial, we hypothesized that standardized uptake value (SUV) on post-treatment [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) correlates with survival in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received conventional concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy without surgery; postradiotherapy consolidation chemotherapy was allowed. Post-treatment FDG-PET was performed at approximately 14 weeks after radiotherapy. SUVs were analyzed both as peak SUV (SUVpeak) and maximum SUV (SUVmax; both institutional and central review readings), with institutional SUVpeak as the primary end point. Relationships between the continuous and categorical (cutoff) SUVs and survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards multivariate models. RESULTS: Of 250 enrolled patients (226 were evaluable for pretreatment SUV), 173 patients were evaluable for post-treatment SUV analyses. The 2-year survival rate for the entire population was 42.5%. Pretreatment SUVpeak and SUVmax (mean, 10.3 and 13.1, respectively) were not associated with survival. Mean post-treatment SUVpeak and SUVmax were 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. Post-treatment SUVpeak was associated with survival in a continuous variable model (hazard ratio, 1.087; 95% CI, 1.014 to 1.166; P = .020). When analyzed as a prespecified binary value (≤ v > 3.5), there was no association with survival. However, in exploratory analyses, significant results for survival were found using an SUVpeak cutoff of 5.0 (P = .041) or 7.0 (P < .001). All results were similar when SUVmax was used in univariate and multivariate models in place of SUVpeak. CONCLUSION: Higher post-treatment tumor SUV (SUVpeak or SUVmax) is associated with worse survival in stage III NSCLC, although a clear cutoff value for routine clinical use as a prognostic factor is uncertain at this time.
PURPOSE: In this prospective National Cancer Institute-funded American College of Radiology Imaging Network/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group cooperative group trial, we hypothesized that standardized uptake value (SUV) on post-treatment [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) correlates with survival in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received conventional concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy without surgery; postradiotherapy consolidation chemotherapy was allowed. Post-treatment FDG-PET was performed at approximately 14 weeks after radiotherapy. SUVs were analyzed both as peak SUV (SUVpeak) and maximum SUV (SUVmax; both institutional and central review readings), with institutional SUVpeak as the primary end point. Relationships between the continuous and categorical (cutoff) SUVs and survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards multivariate models. RESULTS: Of 250 enrolled patients (226 were evaluable for pretreatment SUV), 173 patients were evaluable for post-treatment SUV analyses. The 2-year survival rate for the entire population was 42.5%. Pretreatment SUVpeak and SUVmax (mean, 10.3 and 13.1, respectively) were not associated with survival. Mean post-treatment SUVpeak and SUVmax were 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. Post-treatment SUVpeak was associated with survival in a continuous variable model (hazard ratio, 1.087; 95% CI, 1.014 to 1.166; P = .020). When analyzed as a prespecified binary value (≤ v > 3.5), there was no association with survival. However, in exploratory analyses, significant results for survival were found using an SUVpeak cutoff of 5.0 (P = .041) or 7.0 (P < .001). All results were similar when SUVmax was used in univariate and multivariate models in place of SUVpeak. CONCLUSION: Higher post-treatment tumor SUV (SUVpeak or SUVmax) is associated with worse survival in stage III NSCLC, although a clear cutoff value for routine clinical use as a prognostic factor is uncertain at this time.
Authors: Michael P Mac Manus; Zhe Ding; Annette Hogg; Alan Herschtal; David Binns; David L Ball; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jose L Lopez Guerra; Gregory Gladish; Ritsuko Komaki; Daniel Gomez; Yan Zhuang; Zhongxing Liao Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: T Le Chevalier; R Arriagada; E Quoix; P Ruffie; M Martin; J Y Douillard; M Tarayre; M J Lacombe-Terrier; A Laplanche Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Michael P Mac Manus; Rodney J Hicks; Jane P Matthews; Andrew Wirth; Danny Rischin; David L Ball Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Sarah Everitt; Rodney J Hicks; David Ball; Tomas Kron; Michal Schneider-Kolsky; Tania Walter; David Binns; Michael Mac Manus Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Kirk A Frey; Leslie E Quint; Randall K Ten Haken; James A Hayman; Marc Kessler; Indrin J Chetty; Daniel Normolle; Avraham Eisbruch; Theodore S Lawrence Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Fenghai Duan; Bradley S Snyder; Bo Wei; Mitchell Machtay; Abass Alavi; Barry A Siegel; Douglas W Johnson; Jeffrey D Bradley; Albert DeNittis; Maria Werner-Wasik; Issam El Naqa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Salma K Jabbour; Sinae Kim; Syed A Haider; Xiaoting Xu; Alson Wu; Sujani Surakanti; Joseph Aisner; John Langenfeld; Ning J Yue; Bruce G Haffty; Wei Zou Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maja Guberina; Wilfried Eberhardt; Martin Stuschke; Thomas Gauler; Clemens Aigner; Martin Schuler; Georgios Stamatis; Dirk Theegarten; Walter Jentzen; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Pöttgen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Willem Grootjans; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Esther G C Troost; Eric P Visser; Wim J G Oyen; Johan Bussink Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 66.675