OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive value of (18)F-FDG PET/ CT for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed (PubMed and Cochrane databases) for potentially relevant studies up to January 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The AUCs of the global cohort and for "major response," "complete response," "only PET after chemoradiotherapy," "ad interim PET," "major response excluding ad interim studies," "complete response excluding ad interim studies," "response index (RI)," "posttreatment maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max) post)," "visual response analysis (VRA)," "percentage reduction of the total lesion glycolysis (ΔTLG)," and "percentage reduction of the metabolic tumor volume (ΔMTV)" were analyzed. Heterogeneity was explored for multiple variables. Pooled prevalence and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 131 (26%) initial articles met the inclusion criteria. Those articles included 1526 patients. PET/CT showed good pooled accuracy both in the global cohort (pooled sensitivity, 73%; pooled specificity, 77%; pooled AUC, 0.83) and for subgroups. Pooled accuracy was similar for early PET restaging and at 1 and 2 weeks after beginning chemoradiotherapy (pooled sensitivity, 84%; pooled specificity, 81%; pooled AUC, 0.89). The major response group showed similar sensitivity to the complete response group (74% and 71%, respectively). RI, SUV(max), and VRA were the most frequent parameters used. Pooled RI and SUV(max) postcutoff values were 63% and 4.4. Pooled time to PET during and after chemoradiotherapy was 1.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports the use of FDG PET for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive value of (18)F-FDG PET/ CT for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed (PubMed and Cochrane databases) for potentially relevant studies up to January 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The AUCs of the global cohort and for "major response," "complete response," "only PET after chemoradiotherapy," "ad interim PET," "major response excluding ad interim studies," "complete response excluding ad interim studies," "response index (RI)," "posttreatment maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max) post)," "visual response analysis (VRA)," "percentage reduction of the total lesion glycolysis (ΔTLG)," and "percentage reduction of the metabolic tumor volume (ΔMTV)" were analyzed. Heterogeneity was explored for multiple variables. Pooled prevalence and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 131 (26%) initial articles met the inclusion criteria. Those articles included 1526 patients. PET/CT showed good pooled accuracy both in the global cohort (pooled sensitivity, 73%; pooled specificity, 77%; pooled AUC, 0.83) and for subgroups. Pooled accuracy was similar for early PET restaging and at 1 and 2 weeks after beginning chemoradiotherapy (pooled sensitivity, 84%; pooled specificity, 81%; pooled AUC, 0.89). The major response group showed similar sensitivity to the complete response group (74% and 71%, respectively). RI, SUV(max), and VRA were the most frequent parameters used. Pooled RI and SUV(max) postcutoff values were 63% and 4.4. Pooled time to PET during and after chemoradiotherapy was 1.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports the use of FDG PET for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer.
Authors: Eric Sorenson; Fernando Lambreton; Jian Q Yu; Tianyu Li; Crystal S Denlinger; Joshua E Meyer; Elin R Sigurdson; Jeffrey M Farma Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Niels W Schurink; Lisa A Min; Maaike Berbee; Wouter van Elmpt; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Frans C H Bakers; Sander Roberti; Simon R van Kranen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Pierre Lovinfosse; Marc Polus; Daniel Van Daele; Philippe Martinive; Frédéric Daenen; Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Benjamin Koopmansch; Frédéric Lambert; Carla Coimbra; Laurence Seidel; Adelin Albert; Philippe Delvenne; Roland Hustinx Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Antonio Avallone; Luigi Aloj; Biagio Pecori; Corradina Caracò; Alfonso De Stefano; Fabiana Tatangelo; Lucrezia Silvestro; Vincenza Granata; Francesco Bianco; Carmela Romano; Francesca Di Gennaro; Alfredo Budillon; Antonella Petrillo; Paolo Muto; Gerardo Botti; Paolo Delrio; Secondo Lastoria Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sarah M Schwarzenböck; Matthias Eiber; Günther Kundt; Margitta Retz; Monique Sakretz; Jens Kurth; Uwe Treiber; Roman Nawroth; Ernst J Rummeny; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Mark Thalgott; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.236