PURPOSE: The tumour molecular profile predicts the activity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, tissue availability and tumour heterogeneity limit its assessment. We evaluated whether [(18)F]FDG PET might help predict KRAS and EFGR mutation status in NSCLC. METHODS: Between January 2005 and October 2011, 340 NSCLC patients were tested for KRAS and EGFR mutation status. We identified patients with stage III and IV disease who had undergone [(18)F]FDG PET/CT scanning for initial staging. SUVpeak, SUVmax and SUVmean of the single hottest tumour lesions were calculated, and their association with KRAS and EGFR mutation status was assessed. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and a multivariate analysis (including SUVmean, gender, age and AJCC stage) were performed to identify the potential value of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for predicting KRAS mutation. RESULTS: From 102 patients staged using [(18)F]FDG PET/CT, 28 (27%) had KRAS mutation (KRAS+), 22 (22%) had EGFR mutation (EGFR+) and 52 (51%) had wild-type KRAS and EGFR profiles (WT). KRAS+ patients showed significantly higher [(18)F]FDG uptake than EGFR+ and WT patients (SUVmean 9.5, 5.7 and 6.6, respectively; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in [(18)F]FDG uptake between EGFR+ patients and WT patients. ROC curve analysis for KRAS mutation status discrimination yielded an area under the curve of 0.740 for SUVmean (p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis showed a sensitivity and specificity of 78.6% and 62.2%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.773. CONCLUSION: NSCLC patients with tumours harbouring KRAS mutations showed significantly higher [(18)F]FDG uptake than WT patients, as assessed in terms of SUVpeak, SUVmax and SUVmean. A multivariate model based on age, gender, AJCC stage and SUVmean might be used as a predictive marker of KRAS mutation status in patients with stage III or IV NSCLC.
PURPOSE: The tumour molecular profile predicts the activity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, tissue availability and tumour heterogeneity limit its assessment. We evaluated whether [(18)F]FDG PET might help predict KRAS and EFGR mutation status in NSCLC. METHODS: Between January 2005 and October 2011, 340 NSCLCpatients were tested for KRAS and EGFR mutation status. We identified patients with stage III and IV disease who had undergone [(18)F]FDG PET/CT scanning for initial staging. SUVpeak, SUVmax and SUVmean of the single hottest tumour lesions were calculated, and their association with KRAS and EGFR mutation status was assessed. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and a multivariate analysis (including SUVmean, gender, age and AJCC stage) were performed to identify the potential value of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for predicting KRAS mutation. RESULTS: From 102 patients staged using [(18)F]FDG PET/CT, 28 (27%) had KRAS mutation (KRAS+), 22 (22%) had EGFR mutation (EGFR+) and 52 (51%) had wild-type KRAS and EGFR profiles (WT). KRAS+ patients showed significantly higher [(18)F]FDG uptake than EGFR+ and WTpatients (SUVmean 9.5, 5.7 and 6.6, respectively; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in [(18)F]FDG uptake between EGFR+ patients and WTpatients. ROC curve analysis for KRAS mutation status discrimination yielded an area under the curve of 0.740 for SUVmean (p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis showed a sensitivity and specificity of 78.6% and 62.2%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.773. CONCLUSION:NSCLCpatients with tumours harbouring KRAS mutations showed significantly higher [(18)F]FDG uptake than WTpatients, as assessed in terms of SUVpeak, SUVmax and SUVmean. A multivariate model based on age, gender, AJCC stage and SUVmean might be used as a predictive marker of KRAS mutation status in patients with stage III or IV NSCLC.
Authors: Satoshi Takeuchi; Benjapa Khiewvan; Patricia S Fox; Stephen G Swisher; Eric M Rohren; Roland L Bassett; Homer A Macapinlac Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Eline E Verwer; Floris H P van Velden; Idris Bahce; Maqsood Yaqub; Robert C Schuit; Albert D Windhorst; Pieter Raijmakers; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Egbert F Smit; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rafael Rosell; Teresa Moran; Cristina Queralt; Rut Porta; Felipe Cardenal; Carlos Camps; Margarita Majem; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Dolores Isla; Mariano Provencio; Amelia Insa; Bartomeu Massuti; Jose Luis Gonzalez-Larriba; Luis Paz-Ares; Isabel Bover; Rosario Garcia-Campelo; Miguel Angel Moreno; Silvia Catot; Christian Rolfo; Noemi Reguart; Ramon Palmero; José Miguel Sánchez; Roman Bastus; Clara Mayo; Jordi Bertran-Alamillo; Miguel Angel Molina; Jose Javier Sanchez; Miquel Taron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Helen Su; Yann Seimbille; Gregory Z Ferl; Claudia Bodenstein; Barbara Fueger; Kevin J Kim; Yu-Tien Hsu; Steven M Dubinett; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Zoe Wainer; Marissa G Daniels; Jason Callahan; David Binns; Rodney J Hicks; Phillip Antippa; Prudence A Russell; Naveed Z Alam; Matthew Conron; Benjamin Solomon; Gavin M Wright Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Rafael G Amado; Michael Wolf; Marc Peeters; Eric Van Cutsem; Salvatore Siena; Daniel J Freeman; Todd Juan; Robert Sikorski; Sid Suggs; Robert Radinsky; Scott D Patterson; David D Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Idris Bahce; Egbert F Smit; Mark Lubberink; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Maqsood Yaqub; Albert D Windhorst; Robert C Schuit; Erik Thunnissen; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Pieter E Postmus; Adriaan A Lammertsma; N Harry Hendrikse Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stephen S F Yip; John Kim; Thibaud P Coroller; Chintan Parmar; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Elizabeth Huynh; Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 10.057