| Literature DB >> 24602385 |
Pierre Vera1, Bernard Dubray, Odré Palie, Irène Buvat, Sébastien Hapdey, Romain Modzelewski, Ahmed Benyoucef, Caroline Rousseau, Marc-Etienne Meyer, Stéphane Bardet, Isabelle Gardin, Frederic Di Fiore, Pierre Michel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility and the additional interest of a parametric imaging (PI) method to monitor the early tumour metabolic response in a prospective series of oesophageal cancer patients who underwent positron emission tomography with fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG-PET/CT) before and during curative-intent chemo-radiotherapy.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24602385 PMCID: PMC3973855 DOI: 10.1186/2191-219X-4-12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Patients' characteristics
| Sex: F/M (%) | 4 (9)/42 (91) |
| Age (years), mean (range) | 62 (39 to 82) |
| WHO status: | |
| 0 | 20 (43) |
| 1 | 16 (35) |
| 2 | 3 (7) |
| Undetermined | 7 (15) |
| T/N stage: | |
| cT2 | 6 (13) |
| cT3 | 35 (76) |
| cT4 | 5 (11) |
| cN + a | 16 (35) |
| Tumour location (third): | |
| Upper | 13 (28) |
| Middle | 18 (39) |
| Lower | 10 (22) |
| Upper + middle | 3 (7) |
| Middle + lower | 2 (4) |
aEnlarged lymph nodes on CT scan or EUS or metabolic lymph nodes on FDG-PET/CT.
Figure 1Parametric analysis of the variations in FDG uptake before and during treatment. Left panel: before treatment (TEP1), right panel: at day 21 during treatment (TEP2), middle panel: co-registration of TEP1 and TEP2. The green voxels are those in which FDG uptake has decreased between TEP1 and TEP2; the red voxels are those in which FDG uptake has increased. Voxels in which FDG uptake remained stable do not appear. (A) All voxels are green, indicating homogeneous decrease in FDG uptake (patient was in CR at 1, but small Vg of 6 cm3). (B) An example of spatially heterogeneous response, with green and red voxels appearing in the same tumour (patient with recurrence at 1 year). (C) A 3D visualisation of the PI imaging.
Univariate analysis according to outcome at 3 months
| | | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical factors | | | |
| Age | 64.0 (59.6 to 68.3) | 59.4 (53.9 to 64.9) | 0.18 |
| F/M | 3/26 | 1/16 | 1.0 |
| T2/T3/T4 | 2/27/0 | 4/8/5 | 0.001 |
| 1/2-site T | 28/1 | 13/4 | 0.055 |
| N0/N1 | 22/7 | 8/9 | 0.048 |
| FDG-PET/CT parameters | | | |
| SUVmax1 | 12.5 (10.8 to 14.2) | 15.4 (10.9 to 20.0) | 0.44 |
| TV1 | 9.7 (7.2 to 13.1) | 20.6 (13.2 to 32.2) | 0.004 |
| SUVmax2 | 7.1 (5.9 to 8.2) | 8.6 (6.4 to 10.9) | 0.23 |
| TV2 | 4.8 (3.3 to 6.9) | 11.1 (4.6 to 13.6) | 0.009 |
| 3.1 (1.8 to 5.1) | 5.8 (3.5 to 9.8) | 0.056 | |
| 5.6 (4.0 to 7.9) | 9.8 (6.2 to 15.5) | 0.047 | |
Quantitative variables: mean (95% confidence limits).
Univariate analysis according to outcome at 1 year
| | | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical factors | | | |
| Age | 66.4 (62.3 to 70.5) | 58.5 (53.5 to 63.5) | 0.02 |
| F/M | 3/19 | 1/23 | 0.34 |
| T2/T3/T4 | 3/19/0 | 3/16/5 | 0.08 |
| 1/2-site T | 22/0 | 19/5 | 0.05 |
| N0/N1 | 21/1 | 9/15 | <10−4 |
| FDG-PET/CT parameters | | | |
| SUVmax1 | 10.9 (9.3 to 12.9) | 13.7 (11.2 to 16.8) | 0.08 |
| TV1 | 9.0 (6.5 to 12.5) | 17.8 (12.2 to 26.0) | 0.007 |
| SUVmax2 | 6.3 (5.2 to 7.6) | 7.5 (6.0 to 9.3) | 0.22 |
| TV2 | 6.2 (3.7 to 10.2) | 7.0 (4.5 to 10.7) | 0.69 |
| 3.2 (2.1 to 4.7) | 5.3 (2.9 to 9.8) | 0.33 | |
| 4.5 (3.1 to 6.6) | 10.2 (7.1 to 14.5) | 0.002 | |
Quantitative variables: mean (95% confidence limits).
Multivariate analysis of outcome at 3 months and 1 year (logistic regression)
| 3 months | Age | 0.94 (0.90 to 0.98) | 0.001 | 76% | 0.84 |
| Ln(TV1) | 2.93 (1.31 to 6.60) | 0.009 | | ||
| Ln(1 + | 2.23 (1.01 to 4.96) | 0.047 | | ||
| 1 year | Age | 0.95 (0.92 to 0.99) | 0.006 | 78% | 0.89 |
| N+ | 20.9 (2.24 to 195) | 0.008 | | ||
| Ln( | 3.08 (1.12 to 8.46) | 0.03 |
Natural logarithm (Ln) transformations were used to obtain Gaussian distributions for quantitative variables. 95% CL, 95% confidence limits; AUC ROC, area under receiver operating characteristics curve.