PURPOSE: We studied the predictive value of [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET) for assessing disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search (PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane) was performed to identify full papers with (18)FDG-PET and survival data, using indexing terms and free text words. Studies with >10 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, presenting sequential or at least one post-adjuvant treatment (18)FDG-PET data and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with >6 months median follow-up period were included. We performed a meta-analysis for DFS and OS using the hazard ratio (HRs) as outcome measure. Sources of heterogeneity study were also explored. RESULTS: We identified 26 eligible studies including a total of 1,544 patients (average age 62 years, 82% males). The TNM distribution was as follows: stage I 7%, II 24%, III 53% and IV 15%. The pooled HRs for complete metabolic response versus no response were 0.51 for OS (95% CI, 0.4-0.64; P < 0.00001) and 0.47 for DFS (95% CI, 0.38-0.57; P < 0.00001), respectively. No statistical heterogeneity was present. To explore sources of clinical heterogeneity, we also realised subgroup and regression analyses. Taken into account the moderate correlation between OS and DFS (ρ = 0.54), we used joint bivariate random regression model. These analyses did not show a statistically significant impact of study characteristics and PET modalities on the pooled outcome estimates. CONCLUSION: Despite methodological and clinical heterogeneity, metabolic response on (18)FDG-PET is a significant predictor of long-term survival data.
PURPOSE: We studied the predictive value of [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET) for assessing disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search (PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane) was performed to identify full papers with (18)FDG-PET and survival data, using indexing terms and free text words. Studies with >10 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, presenting sequential or at least one post-adjuvant treatment (18)FDG-PET data and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with >6 months median follow-up period were included. We performed a meta-analysis for DFS and OS using the hazard ratio (HRs) as outcome measure. Sources of heterogeneity study were also explored. RESULTS: We identified 26 eligible studies including a total of 1,544 patients (average age 62 years, 82% males). The TNM distribution was as follows: stage I 7%, II 24%, III 53% and IV 15%. The pooled HRs for complete metabolic response versus no response were 0.51 for OS (95% CI, 0.4-0.64; P < 0.00001) and 0.47 for DFS (95% CI, 0.38-0.57; P < 0.00001), respectively. No statistical heterogeneity was present. To explore sources of clinical heterogeneity, we also realised subgroup and regression analyses. Taken into account the moderate correlation between OS and DFS (ρ = 0.54), we used joint bivariate random regression model. These analyses did not show a statistically significant impact of study characteristics and PET modalities on the pooled outcome estimates. CONCLUSION: Despite methodological and clinical heterogeneity, metabolic response on (18)FDG-PET is a significant predictor of long-term survival data.
Authors: Arta Monir Monjazeb; Greg Riedlinger; Mebea Aklilu; Kim R Geisinger; Girish Mishra; Scott Isom; Paige Clark; Edward A Levine; A William Blackstock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joerg R Siewert; Florian Lordick; Katja Ott; Hubert J Stein; Wolfgang A Weber; Karen Becker; Christian Peschel; Ulrich Fink; Markus Schwaiger Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Johannes B Roedl; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Rivka R Colen; Alan J Fischman; Michael A Blake; Douglas J Mathisen; Peter R Mueller Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Srikrishna V Patnana; Santosh B Murthy; Lianchun Xiao; Eric Rohren; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Zhongxing Liao; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Homer A Macapinlac; Xuemei Wang; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David H Ilson; Bruce D Minsky; Geoffrey Y Ku; Valerie Rusch; Nabil Rizk; Manish Shah; David P Kelsen; Marinela Capanu; Laura Tang; Jenny Campbell; Manjit Bains Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert J Korst; Amanda L Kansler; Jeffrey L Port; Paul C Lee; Yaniv Kerem; Nasser K Altorki Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Dietmar Tamandl; Richard M Gore; Barbara Fueger; Patrick Kinsperger; Michael Hejna; Matthias Paireder; Alexander Haug; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kazuto Harada; Xuemei Wang; Yusuke Shimodaira; Tara Sagebiel; Manoop S Bhutani; Jeffrey H Lee; Brian Weston; Elena Elimova; Quan Lin; Fatemeh G Amlashi; Dilsa Mizrak Kaya; Anthony Lopez; Mariela A Blum Murphy; Jack A Roth; Stephen G Swisher; Heath D Skinner; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jane E Rogers; Irene Thomas; Dipen M Maru; Ritsuko Komaki; Garrett Walsh; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.493