Minsig Choi1, Sri Lakshmi S Kollepara2, Lance K Heilbrun3, Daryn Smith3, Anthony F Shields3, Philip A Philip3. 1. Department of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. Electronic address: Minsig.choi@stonybrookmedicine.edu. 2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Providence Hospital, Southfield, MI. 3. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) scan in predicting the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has not been well studied. We hypothesized that standardized uptake value (SUV) in FDG-PET scans after treatment predicts outcomes among patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed mCRC patients who had FDG-PET scans before their treatment and measured their SUV on follow-up imaging at the Karmanos Cancer Institute. Primary end points of time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared in 2 groups: follow-up (posttreatment) SUV of 0 versus > 0. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 44 patients (median age of 58.1 years). Forty (91%) of the patients were treated first-line, 34 (77%) received an oxaliplatin-based regimen, and 7 (16%) received an irinotecan-based regimen. Thirty-four (77%) patients received concurrent bevacizumab. Median pretreatment SUV was 9.2 (range, 1.7-46.3), and median posttreatment SUV (in n = 41) was 4.0 (range, 0-14). The median percent change in SUV was -68.5% (range, -9.2% to -100%). The median time interval between scans was 2.6 months. There was no statistically significant difference noted between metabolic responders and nonresponders with regard to TTP and OS. However, patients with a posttreatment SUV of 0 had significantly longer OS than those with posttreatment SUV of > 0 (median, 42 vs. 25.2 months, respectively), and slightly longer TTP (median, 8.2 vs. 6.9 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: Systemic therapy significantly decreased SUV on follow-up PET scans in advanced colorectal cancer patients. Absence of FDG uptake on follow-up PET scans was associated with markedly longer OS and slightly longer TTP.
BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) scan in predicting the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has not been well studied. We hypothesized that standardized uptake value (SUV) in FDG-PET scans after treatment predicts outcomes among patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed mCRC patients who had FDG-PET scans before their treatment and measured their SUV on follow-up imaging at the Karmanos Cancer Institute. Primary end points of time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared in 2 groups: follow-up (posttreatment) SUV of 0 versus > 0. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 44 patients (median age of 58.1 years). Forty (91%) of the patients were treated first-line, 34 (77%) received an oxaliplatin-based regimen, and 7 (16%) received an irinotecan-based regimen. Thirty-four (77%) patients received concurrent bevacizumab. Median pretreatment SUV was 9.2 (range, 1.7-46.3), and median posttreatment SUV (in n = 41) was 4.0 (range, 0-14). The median percent change in SUV was -68.5% (range, -9.2% to -100%). The median time interval between scans was 2.6 months. There was no statistically significant difference noted between metabolic responders and nonresponders with regard to TTP and OS. However, patients with a posttreatment SUV of 0 had significantly longer OS than those with posttreatment SUV of > 0 (median, 42 vs. 25.2 months, respectively), and slightly longer TTP (median, 8.2 vs. 6.9 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: Systemic therapy significantly decreased SUV on follow-up PET scans in advanced colorectal cancerpatients. Absence of FDG uptake on follow-up PET scans was associated with markedly longer OS and slightly longer TTP.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Ariela Noy; Mithat Gönen; Lijun Weng; David Green; Yusuf E Erdi; Steven M Larson; Henry W D Yeung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Flamen; O S Hoekstra; F Homans; E Van Cutsem; A Maes; S Stroobants; M Peeters; F Penninckx; L Filez; R P Bleichrodt; L Mortelmans Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: P Flamen; A Lerut; E Van Cutsem; W De Wever; M Peeters; S Stroobants; P Dupont; G Bormans; M Hiele; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; W Coosemans; N Ectors; K Haustermans; L Mortelmans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: M Findlay; H Young; D Cunningham; A Iveson; B Cronin; T Hickish; B Pratt; J Husband; M Flower; R Ott Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Krista Elise Suarez-Weiss; Alexander Herold; Debra Gervais; Edwin Palmer; Bárbara Amorim; Joseph D King; Li Weier; Tajmir Shahein; Hanna Bernstine; Liran Domachevsk; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Radiologe Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 0.635