Dietmar Tamandl1, Richard M Gore2, Barbara Fueger3, Patrick Kinsperger3, Michael Hejna4, Matthias Paireder5, Alexander Haug3, Sebastian F Schoppmann5, Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah3. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Comprehensive Cancer Center GET-Unit, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. dietmar.tamandl@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Comprehensive Cancer Center GET-Unit, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center GET-Unit, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Surgery, Upper-GI-Service, Comprehensive Cancer Center GET-Unit, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured with CT and PET/CT in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and resection for oesophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced EC, who were treated with NACT and resection, were retrospectively analysed. Data from CT volumetry and (18) F-FDG PET/CT (maximum standardized uptake [SUVmax], metabolic tumour volume [MTV], and total lesion glycolysis [TLG]) were recorded before and after NACT. The impact of volumetric parameter changes induced by NACT (MTVRATIO, TLGRATIO, etc.) on overall survival (OS) was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were assessed using CT volumetry; of those, 50 also had PET/CT before and after NACT. Low post-treatment CT volume and thickness, MTV, TLG, and SUVmax were all associated with longer OS (p < 0.05), as were CTthicknessRATIO, MTVRATIO, TLGRATIO, and SUVmaxRATIO (p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, only MTVRATIO (Hazard ratio, HR 2.52 [95% Confidence interval, CI 1.33-4.78], p = 0.005), TLGRATIO (HR 3.89 [95%CI 1.46-10.34], p = 0.006), and surgical margin status (p < 0.05), were independent predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: MTVRATIO and TLGRATIO are independent prognostic factors for survival in patients after NACT and resection for EC. KEY POINTS: • Change in PET parameters shows close correlation to survival in oesophageal cancer. • Association with OS is independent of changes in SUVmax and CT volume. • Metabolic parameters after NACT correlate with pathologic response and nodal status. • Metabolic parameters may be better suited than SUVmax for response assessment.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured with CT and PET/CT in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and resection for oesophageal cancer (EC). METHODS:Patients with locally advanced EC, who were treated with NACT and resection, were retrospectively analysed. Data from CT volumetry and (18) F-FDG PET/CT (maximum standardized uptake [SUVmax], metabolic tumour volume [MTV], and total lesion glycolysis [TLG]) were recorded before and after NACT. The impact of volumetric parameter changes induced by NACT (MTVRATIO, TLGRATIO, etc.) on overall survival (OS) was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were assessed using CT volumetry; of those, 50 also had PET/CT before and after NACT. Low post-treatment CT volume and thickness, MTV, TLG, and SUVmax were all associated with longer OS (p < 0.05), as were CTthicknessRATIO, MTVRATIO, TLGRATIO, and SUVmaxRATIO (p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, only MTVRATIO (Hazard ratio, HR 2.52 [95% Confidence interval, CI 1.33-4.78], p = 0.005), TLGRATIO (HR 3.89 [95%CI 1.46-10.34], p = 0.006), and surgical margin status (p < 0.05), were independent predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: MTVRATIO and TLGRATIO are independent prognostic factors for survival in patients after NACT and resection for EC. KEY POINTS: • Change in PET parameters shows close correlation to survival in oesophageal cancer. • Association with OS is independent of changes in SUVmax and CT volume. • Metabolic parameters after NACT correlate with pathologic response and nodal status. • Metabolic parameters may be better suited than SUVmax for response assessment.
Authors: Min P Kim; Arlene M Correa; Jared Lee; David C Rice; Jack A Roth; Reza J Mehran; Garrett L Walsh; Jaffer A Ajani; Dipen M Maru; Joe Y Chang; Edith M Marom; Homer A Macapinlac; Jeff H Lee; Ara A Vaporciyan; Thomas Rice; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne L Hofstetter Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Wolfgang Matzek; Susanne Baroud; Nina Bastati; Johannes Zacherl; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Michael Hejna; Fritz Wrba; Michael Weber; Christian J Herold; Richard M Gore Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Michel Ollers; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: B D Minsky; D Neuberg; D P Kelsen; T M Pisansky; R J Ginsberg; T Pajak; M Salter; A B Benson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Seung Hyup Hyun; Joon Young Choi; Young Mog Shim; Kwhanmien Kim; Su Jin Lee; Young Seok Cho; Ji Young Lee; Kyung-Han Lee; Byung-Tae Kim Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Connie Yip; Vicky Goh; Andrew Davies; James Gossage; Rosalind Mitchell-Hay; Orla Hynes; Nick Maisey; Paul Ross; Andrew Gaya; David B Landau; Gary J Cook; Nyree Griffin; Robert Mason Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Antonio Esposito; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: M Hart Squires; Nicole Gower; Jennifer H Benbow; Erin E Donahue; Casey E Bohl; Roshan S Prabhu; Joshua S Hill; Jonathan C Salo Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John M Findlay; Richard S Gillies; James M Franklin; Eugene J Teoh; Greg E Jones; Sara di Carlo; Fergus V Gleeson; Nicholas D Maynard; Kevin M Bradley; Mark R Middleton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rebecca Bütof; Frank Hofheinz; Klaus Zöphel; Julia Schmollack; Christina Jentsch; Sebastian Zschaeck; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff; Michael Baumann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 10.057