Seol Hoon Park1, Jin-Sook Ryu1, Seung-Jun Oh1, Seung-Il Park2, Yong Hee Kim2, Hoon-Yong Jung3, Gin Hyug Lee3, Ho Jun Song3, Jong Hoon Kim4, Ho-Young Song5, Kyoung Ja Cho6, Sung-Bae Kim3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Pungnap-2dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736 South Korea. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 138-736 South Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 138-736 South Korea. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 138-736 South Korea. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 138-736 South Korea. 6. Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 138-736 South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET is feasible for the early prediction of tumor response to induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: This study was prospectively performed as a collateral study of "randomized phase II study of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy with S-1/oxaliplatin in patients with resectable esophageal cancer". (18)F-FLT positron emission tomography (PET) images were obtained before and after two cycles of induction chemotherapy, and the percent change of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was calculated. All patients underwent esophagography, gastrofiberoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET at baseline and 3-4 weeks after completion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Final tumor response was determined by both clinical and pathologic tumor responses after surgery. RESULTS: The 13 patients for induction chemotherapy group were enrolled until interim analysis. In a primary tumor visual analysis, the tumor detection rates of baseline (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG PET were 85% and 100%, respectively. The tumor uptakes on (18)F-FLT PET were lower than those of (18)F-FDG PET. Among nine patients who completed second (18)F-FLT PET, eight patients were responders and one patient was a non-responder in the assessment of final tumor response. The percent change of SUVmax in responders ranged from 41.2% to 79.2% (median 57.1%), whereas it was 10.2% in one non-responder. CONCLUSION: The percent change of tumor uptake in (18)F-FLT PET after induction chemotherapy might be feasible for early prediction of tumor response after induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET is feasible for the early prediction of tumor response to induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: This study was prospectively performed as a collateral study of "randomized phase II study of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy with S-1/oxaliplatin in patients with resectable esophageal cancer". (18)F-FLT positron emission tomography (PET) images were obtained before and after two cycles of induction chemotherapy, and the percent change of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was calculated. All patients underwent esophagography, gastrofiberoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET at baseline and 3-4 weeks after completion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Final tumor response was determined by both clinical and pathologic tumor responses after surgery. RESULTS: The 13 patients for induction chemotherapy group were enrolled until interim analysis. In a primary tumor visual analysis, the tumor detection rates of baseline (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG PET were 85% and 100%, respectively. The tumor uptakes on (18)F-FLT PET were lower than those of (18)F-FDG PET. Among nine patients who completed second (18)F-FLT PET, eight patients were responders and one patient was a non-responder in the assessment of final tumor response. The percent change of SUVmax in responders ranged from 41.2% to 79.2% (median 57.1%), whereas it was 10.2% in one non-responder. CONCLUSION: The percent change of tumor uptake in (18)F-FLT PET after induction chemotherapy might be feasible for early prediction of tumor response after induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer.
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Betty S Pio; Cecilia K Park; Richard Pietras; Wei-Ann Hsueh; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Mark D Pegram; Johannes Czernin; Michael E Phelps; Daniel H S Silverman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: W A Weber; K Ott; K Becker; H J Dittler; H Helmberger; N E Avril; G Meisetschläger; R Busch; J R Siewert; M Schwaiger; U Fink Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Val Gebski; Bryan Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Kerwyn Foo; John Zalcberg; John Simes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Bernd Klaeser; Egbert Nitzsche; Jan C Schuller; Dieter Köberle; Lucas Widmer; Sabine Balmer-Majno; Thomas Hany; Corinne Cescato-Wenger; Peter Brauchli; Michael Zünd; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Clemens Caspar; Susanne Albrecht; Roger von Moos; Thomas Ruhstaller Journal: Onkologie Date: 2009-11-09
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Gisela Halter; Holger Schirrmeister; Jörg Kotzerke; Imke Wurziger; Gerhard Glatting; Torsten Mattfeldt; Bernd Neumaier; Sven N Reske; Martin Hetzel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Laura Kenny; R Charles Coombes; David M Vigushin; Adil Al-Nahhas; Sami Shousha; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-03-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R Sharma; P Mapelli; G B Hanna; R Goldin; D Power; A Al-Nahhas; S Merchant; R Ramaswami; A Challapalli; T Barwick; E O Aboagye Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 3.138