| Literature DB >> 24962658 |
James M Wilson1, Somnath Mukherjee, Kwun-Ye Chu, Thomas B Brunner, Mike Partridge, Maria Hawkins.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best method of identifying regions within pancreatic tumours that might benefit from an increased radiotherapy dose is not known. We investigated the utility of pre-treatment FDG-PET in predicting the spatial distribution of residual metabolic activity following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24962658 PMCID: PMC4078370 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Pre- and Post-treatment SUV values and absolute volumes of the gross tumour volume (GTV) and volumes derived from segmentation of the pre- and post-treatment FDG-PET/CTs
| 1 | 7.6 | 4.2 | 57.6 | 28.9 | 19.8 | 0.2 | 1.6 | 6.9 | 14.7 |
| 2 | 8.4 | 7.2 | 80.2 | 31.6 | 18.7 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 16.7 |
| 3 | 6.4 | mCR | 14.5 | 7.4 | 3.8 | | | | |
| 4 | 10.6 | 5.7 | 41.9 | 15.6 | 9.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 2.3 | 4.9 |
| 5 | 15.6 | 6.2 | 44.9 | 15.7 | 10.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 2.6 |
| 6 | 13.2 | ± | 55.2 | 8.1 | 3.4 | | | | |
| 7 | 6.2 | 3.6 | 38.0 | 22.4 | 12.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 4.4 |
| 8 | 11.9 | 7.5 | 27.2 | 13.4 | 5.4 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 2.6 |
| 9 | 4.0 | 7.9 | 28.6 | § | § | § | § | § | § |
| 10 | 9.1 | mCR | 49.9 | 34.2 | 9.2 | | | | |
| 11 | 10.0 | mCR | 19.3 | 4.8 | 2.5 | | | | |
| 12 | 9.4 | mCR | 14.0 | 6 | 3.2 | | | | |
| 13 | ¢ | ¢ | 10.6 | ¢ | ¢ | ¢ | ¢ | ¢ | ¢ |
| 14 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 22.3 | 11.0 | 5.9 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 4.0 |
| 15 | ¤ | ¤ | 40.8 | ¤ | ¤ | ¤ | ¤ | ¤ | ¤ |
| 16 | 9.3 | 5.1 | 32.9 | 21.8 | 15.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 4 | 7.6 |
| 17 | 6.5 | 3.2 | 26.6 | 19.0 | 11.8 | 0.2 | 1.6 | 5.5 | 11.4 |
| Median | 8.0*** | 3.6*** P < 0.001 | | | | | | | |
| Mean^ | 41.3 | 19.9 | 12.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 2.9 | 7.7 | ||
mCR metabolic complete response. ¢ Not FDG avid. § Diffuse FDG uptake making delineation of a ROI impossible. ¤ Elevated serum glucose, scans therefore could not be interpreted. ± Not done. *Difference in pre- and post-treatment SUVmax p = 0.0006. ^only values included in spatial correlation analysis included.
Figure 1Pre- and post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) SUV values.
Figure 2Pre-treatment volumes defined by 40% of SUV (Pre40%) and 50% of SUV (Pre50%) expressed as proportion of the GTV (mean and range).
Figure 3Relation of the GTV (red) and Pre40% (brown) to the Post60% (cyan), Post70% (purple), Post80% (orange), Post90% (yellow) in three representative patients. (A. axial B. coronal C. sagittal images).
Figure 4Degree of overlap between the Pre40% and Pre50% subvolumes and the post-CRT subvolumes. Bars represent mean% intersection of the post-treatment volume with the pre-treatment volume. Error bars represent the range.
Degree of overlap between the post-treatment FDG-PET derived volumes and the pre-treatment 40% and 50% of SUV volumes
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | Post90% | Post80% | Post70% | Post60% | Post90% | Post80% | Post70% | Post60% |
| 1 | 100.0 | 87.5 | 87.0 | 83.0 | 50.0 | 68.8 | 66.7 | 64.0 |
| 2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 68.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 54.5 |
| 4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.9 | 100.0 | 16.7 | 87.0 | 81.6 |
| 5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 88.5 |
| 7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.8 |
| 8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| 14 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 90.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 81.8 | 70.0 |
| 16 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.0 | 82.9 |
| 17 | 50.0 | 68.8 | 60.0 | 51.8 | 50.0 | 43.8 | 40.0 | 35.1 |
| Mean | 83.3 | 84.0 | 83.7 | 77.9 | 77.8 | 69.9 | 74.5 | 64.8 |