PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the predictive value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT semiquantitative parameters for locally advanced low rectal cancer (LARC) treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT). METHODS: 68 patients with LARC had (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans twice (baseline and 5-6 weeks post-nCRT). All patients underwent surgery with preservation of the sphincter 8 weeks later. (18)F-FDG PET/CT analysis was performed by visual response assessment (VRA) and semiquantitative parameters: SUVmax(baseline), SUVmean(baseline), MTV(baseline), TLG(baseline), SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), MTV(post-nCRT), TLG(post-nCRT); ΔSUVmax and mean and Response indexes (RImax% and RImean%). Assessment of nCRT tumor response was performed according to the Mandard's Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) and (y)pTNM staging on the surgical specimens. Concordances of VRA with TRG, and with (y)pTNM criteria were evaluated by Cohen's K. Results were compared by t student test for unpaired groups. ROC curve analysis was performed. RESULTS: VRA analysis of post-nCRT (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan for the (y)pTNM outcome showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 87.5%, 66.7%, 83.8%, 92.5%, and 53.3%, respectively. Concordances of VRA with TRG and with (y)pTNM were moderate. For the outcome variable TRG, the statistical difference between responders and non-responders was significant for SUVmax(post-nCRT) and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM, there was a significant difference for MTV(baseline), SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), MTV(post-nCRT), RImax%, and RImean%. ROC analysis showed better AUCs: for the outcome variable TRG for SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM for MTVbaseline, SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), MTV(post-nCRT), RImax%, and RImean%. No significant differences among parameters were found. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations for (18)F-FDG PET/CT are the optimal approach; a valid parameter for response prediction has still to be established.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the predictive value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT semiquantitative parameters for locally advanced low rectal cancer (LARC) treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT). METHODS: 68 patients with LARC had (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans twice (baseline and 5-6 weeks post-nCRT). All patients underwent surgery with preservation of the sphincter 8 weeks later. (18)F-FDG PET/CT analysis was performed by visual response assessment (VRA) and semiquantitative parameters: SUVmax(baseline), SUVmean(baseline), MTV(baseline), TLG(baseline), SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), MTV(post-nCRT), TLG(post-nCRT); ΔSUVmax and mean and Response indexes (RImax% and RImean%). Assessment of nCRT tumor response was performed according to the Mandard's Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) and (y)pTNM staging on the surgical specimens. Concordances of VRA with TRG, and with (y)pTNM criteria were evaluated by Cohen's K. Results were compared by t student test for unpaired groups. ROC curve analysis was performed. RESULTS: VRA analysis of post-nCRT (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan for the (y)pTNM outcome showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 87.5%, 66.7%, 83.8%, 92.5%, and 53.3%, respectively. Concordances of VRA with TRG and with (y)pTNM were moderate. For the outcome variable TRG, the statistical difference between responders and non-responders was significant for SUVmax(post-nCRT) and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM, there was a significant difference for MTV(baseline), SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), MTV(post-nCRT), RImax%, and RImean%. ROC analysis showed better AUCs: for the outcome variable TRG for SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), and RImean%; for the outcome variable (y)pTNM for MTVbaseline, SUVmax(post-nCRT), SUVmean(post-nCRT), MTV(post-nCRT), RImax%, and RImean%. No significant differences among parameters were found. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations for (18)F-FDG PET/CT are the optimal approach; a valid parameter for response prediction has still to be established.
Authors: Paula Martin-Gonzalez; Estibaliz Gomez de Mariscal; M Elena Martino; Pedro M Gordaliza; Isabel Peligros; Jose Luis Carreras; Felipe A Calvo; Javier Pascau; Manuel Desco; Arrate Muñoz-Barrutia Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240