Dana L Casey1, Leonard H Wexler2, Josef J Fox3, Kavita V Dharmarajan4, Heiko Schoder3, Alison N Price5, Suzanne L Wolden6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Surgery, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: woldens@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) response of the primary tumor after induction chemotherapy predicts outcomes in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: After excluding those with initial tumor resection, 107 patients who underwent FDG-PET after induction chemotherapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2002 to 2013 were reviewed. Local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated according to FDG-PET response and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) at baseline (PET1/SUV1), after induction chemotherapy (PET2/SUV2), and after local therapy (PET3/SUV3). Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to determine the optimal cutoff for dichotomization of SUV1 and SUV2 values. RESULTS: The SUV1 (<9.5 vs ≥9.5) was predictive of PFS (P=.02) and OS (P=.02), but not LC. After 12 weeks (median) of induction chemotherapy, 45 patients had negative PET2 scans and 62 had positive scans: 3-year PFS was 72% versus 44%, respectively (P=.01). The SUV2 (<1.5 vs ≥1.5) was similarly predictive of PFS (P=.005) and was associated with LC (P=.02) and OS (P=.03). A positive PET3 scan was predictive of worse PFS (P=.0009), LC (P=.05), and OS (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is an early indicator of outcomes in patients with RMS. Future prospective trials may incorporate FDG-PET response data for risk-adapted therapy and early assessment of new treatment regimens.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) response of the primary tumor after induction chemotherapy predicts outcomes in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: After excluding those with initial tumor resection, 107 patients who underwent FDG-PET after induction chemotherapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2002 to 2013 were reviewed. Local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated according to FDG-PET response and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) at baseline (PET1/SUV1), after induction chemotherapy (PET2/SUV2), and after local therapy (PET3/SUV3). Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to determine the optimal cutoff for dichotomization of SUV1 and SUV2 values. RESULTS: The SUV1 (<9.5 vs ≥9.5) was predictive of PFS (P=.02) and OS (P=.02), but not LC. After 12 weeks (median) of induction chemotherapy, 45 patients had negative PET2 scans and 62 had positive scans: 3-year PFS was 72% versus 44%, respectively (P=.01). The SUV2 (<1.5 vs ≥1.5) was similarly predictive of PFS (P=.005) and was associated with LC (P=.02) and OS (P=.03). A positive PET3 scan was predictive of worse PFS (P=.0009), LC (P=.05), and OS (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS:[(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is an early indicator of outcomes in patients with RMS. Future prospective trials may incorporate FDG-PET response data for risk-adapted therapy and early assessment of new treatment regimens.
Authors: Ralph P Ermoian; John Breneman; David O Walterhouse; Yueh-Yun Chi; Jane Meza; James Anderson; Douglas S Hawkins; Andrea A Hayes-Jordan; David M Parham; Torunn I Yock; Sarah S Donaldson; Suzanne L Wolden Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Timothy B Lautz; Yueh-Yun Chi; Jing Tian; Abha A Gupta; Suzanne L Wolden; Jonathan C Routh; Dana L Casey; Roshni Dasgupta; Douglas S Hawkins; David A Rodeberg Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Suzanne L Wolden; Elizabeth R Lyden; Carola A Arndt; Douglas S Hawkins; James R Anderson; David A Rodeberg; Carol D Morris; Sarah S Donaldson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S Gallego; D Bernabeu; M Garrido-Pontnou; G Guillen; N Hindi; A Juan-Ribelles; C Márquez; C Mata; J Orcajo; G Ramírez; M Ramos; C Romagosa; D Ruano; P Rubio; R Vergés; C Valverde Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.405