Ur Metser1, Farid Rashidi, Hadas Moshonov, Rebecca Wong, Jennifer Knox, Maha Guindi, Gail Darling. 1. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 610 University Ave., Suite 3-960, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada, ur.metser@uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To correlate metabolic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) on FDG-PET/CT using PERCIST-based criteria to pathologic and clinical response, and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with LAEC underwent PET/CT at baseline and after NACR. Tumors were evaluated using PERCIST (PET response criteria in solid tumors)-based criteria including SUL, SUL tumor/liver ratio, % change in SUL. These parameters were compared to pathology regression grade (PRG), clinical response (including residual or new disease beyond the surgical specimen), and overall survival. RESULTS: On surgical pathology, there was complete or near-complete regression of tumor in 51.1 %, partial response in 42.2 %, and lack regression in 4.4 %. One patient (2.2 %) had progression of disease on imaging and did not undergo surgical resection. None of the baseline PET parameters had significant correlation to pathology regression grade or clinical response. On follow-up, a positive correlation was found between post-therapy SUL ratio, %∆ SUL and %∆ SUL ratio and clinical response (p = 0.025, 0.035, 0.030, respectively). A weak correlation was found between post-therapy SUL ratio to PRG (p = 0.049). A strong correlation was found between the metabolic response score and PRG (p = 0.002) as well as between metabolic response and clinical response (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PERCIST-based metabolic response assessment to NACR in LAEC may correlate with clinical outcome and survival.
PURPOSE: To correlate metabolic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) on FDG-PET/CT using PERCIST-based criteria to pathologic and clinical response, and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with LAEC underwent PET/CT at baseline and after NACR. Tumors were evaluated using PERCIST (PET response criteria in solid tumors)-based criteria including SUL, SUL tumor/liver ratio, % change in SUL. These parameters were compared to pathology regression grade (PRG), clinical response (including residual or new disease beyond the surgical specimen), and overall survival. RESULTS: On surgical pathology, there was complete or near-complete regression of tumor in 51.1 %, partial response in 42.2 %, and lack regression in 4.4 %. One patient (2.2 %) had progression of disease on imaging and did not undergo surgical resection. None of the baseline PET parameters had significant correlation to pathology regression grade or clinical response. On follow-up, a positive correlation was found between post-therapy SUL ratio, %∆ SUL and %∆ SUL ratio and clinical response (p = 0.025, 0.035, 0.030, respectively). A weak correlation was found between post-therapy SUL ratio to PRG (p = 0.049). A strong correlation was found between the metabolic response score and PRG (p = 0.002) as well as between metabolic response and clinical response (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PERCIST-based metabolic response assessment to NACR in LAEC may correlate with clinical outcome and survival.
Authors: Nelson Adami Andreollo; Giovanni de Carvalho Beraldo; Iuri Pedreira Filardi Alves; Valdir Tercioti-Junior; José Antonio Possato Ferrer; João de Souza Coelho-Neto; Luiz Roberto Lopes Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2018-12-06
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
Authors: Maarten C J Anderegg; Elisabeth J de Groof; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Roel J Bennink; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240