Rebecca Bütof1, Frank Hofheinz2, Klaus Zöphel3, Tobias Stadelmann4, Julia Schmollack4, Christina Jentsch5, Steffen Löck6, Jörg Kotzerke3, Michael Baumann7, Jörg van den Hoff8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany Rebecca.Buetof@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PET Center, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Dresden, Germany. 3. OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; and. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. 6. OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology, Dresden, Germany. 8. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PET Center, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Dresden, Germany Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Despite ongoing efforts to develop new treatment options, the prognosis for patients with inoperable esophageal carcinoma is still poor and the reliability of individual therapy outcome prediction based on clinical parameters is not convincing. The aim of this work was to investigate whether PET can provide independent prognostic information in such a patient group and whether the tumor-to-blood standardized uptake ratio (SUR) can improve the prognostic value of tracer uptake values. METHODS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 130 consecutive patients (mean age ± SD, 63 ± 11 y; 113 men, 17 women) with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer before definitive radiochemotherapy. In the PET images, the metabolically active tumor volume (MTV) of the primary tumor was delineated with an adaptive threshold method. The blood standardized uptake value (SUV) was determined by manually delineating the aorta in the low-dose CT. SUR values were computed as the ratio of tumor SUV and blood SUV. Uptake values were scan-time-corrected to 60 min after injection. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to overall survival (OS), distant metastases-free survival (DM), and locoregional tumor control (LRC) was performed. Additionally, a multivariate Cox regression including clinically relevant parameters was performed. RESULTS: In multivariate Cox regression with respect to OS, including T stage, N stage, and smoking state, MTV- and SUR-based parameters were significant prognostic factors for OS with similar effect size. Multivariate analysis with respect to DM revealed smoking state, MTV, and all SUR-based parameters as significant prognostic factors. The highest hazard ratios (HRs) were found for scan-time-corrected maximum SUR (HR = 3.9) and mean SUR (HR = 4.4). None of the PET parameters was associated with LRC. Univariate Cox regression with respect to LRC revealed a significant effect only for N stage greater than 0 (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: PET provides independent prognostic information for OS and DM but not for LRC in patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma treated with definitive radiochemotherapy in addition to clinical parameters. Among the investigated uptake-based parameters, only SUR was an independent prognostic factor for OS and DM. These results suggest that the prognostic value of tracer uptake can be improved when characterized by SUR instead of SUV. Further investigations are required to confirm these preliminary results.
UNLABELLED: Despite ongoing efforts to develop new treatment options, the prognosis for patients with inoperable esophageal carcinoma is still poor and the reliability of individual therapy outcome prediction based on clinical parameters is not convincing. The aim of this work was to investigate whether PET can provide independent prognostic information in such a patient group and whether the tumor-to-blood standardized uptake ratio (SUR) can improve the prognostic value of tracer uptake values. METHODS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 130 consecutive patients (mean age ± SD, 63 ± 11 y; 113 men, 17 women) with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer before definitive radiochemotherapy. In the PET images, the metabolically active tumor volume (MTV) of the primary tumor was delineated with an adaptive threshold method. The blood standardized uptake value (SUV) was determined by manually delineating the aorta in the low-dose CT. SUR values were computed as the ratio of tumor SUV and blood SUV. Uptake values were scan-time-corrected to 60 min after injection. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to overall survival (OS), distant metastases-free survival (DM), and locoregional tumor control (LRC) was performed. Additionally, a multivariate Cox regression including clinically relevant parameters was performed. RESULTS: In multivariate Cox regression with respect to OS, including T stage, N stage, and smoking state, MTV- and SUR-based parameters were significant prognostic factors for OS with similar effect size. Multivariate analysis with respect to DM revealed smoking state, MTV, and all SUR-based parameters as significant prognostic factors. The highest hazard ratios (HRs) were found for scan-time-corrected maximum SUR (HR = 3.9) and mean SUR (HR = 4.4). None of the PET parameters was associated with LRC. Univariate Cox regression with respect to LRC revealed a significant effect only for N stage greater than 0 (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: PET provides independent prognostic information for OS and DM but not for LRC in patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma treated with definitive radiochemotherapy in addition to clinical parameters. Among the investigated uptake-based parameters, only SUR was an independent prognostic factor for OS and DM. These results suggest that the prognostic value of tracer uptake can be improved when characterized by SUR instead of SUV. Further investigations are required to confirm these preliminary results.
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
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Frank Hofheinz; Jörg van den Hoff; Ingo G Steffen; Alexandr Lougovski; Kilian Ego; Holger Amthauer; Ivayla Apostolova Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.138