Milly Schröer-Günther1, Fülöp Scheibler, Robert Wolff, Marie Westwood, Brigitta Baumert, Stefan Lange. 1. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Köln, Department of Radiation-Oncology, MediClin Robert Janker Clinic & Cooperation Unit Neurooncology, University of Bonn Medical Center, and Department of Radiation-Oncology (MAASTRO) & GROW (School for Oncology), Maastricht University MC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The response to neoadjuvant (radio-)chemotherapy for esophageal carcinoma is often assessed with the aid of positron-emission tomography (PET), either alone or in combination with computed tomography (PET-CT). In this review, we discuss the diagnostic validity and clinical benefit of these imaging techniques. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing PET-CT with conventional techniques such as endosonography and CT. We then determined the diagnostic validity of these methods on the basis of information from published systematic reviews, updated with further information from more recent primary studies. RESULTS: We did not find any RCTs that addressed the question of the patient-relevant benefit of PET-CT. We found 20 studies of diagnostic methods, carried out on a total of 854 patients, of whom 82.2% were male. These studies had a high potential for bias. In two of them, PET-CT was directly compared with endosonography or CT. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity varied widely across studies. 54% of all patients (median value across studies) had no histopathological response to therapy at the end of treatment. Taking a reduction of the standard uptake value (SUV) by at least 35% as a threshold criterion, we found that the median negative predictive value of PET across all studies was 86.5. CONCLUSION: There is no robust evidence for a patient-relevant benefit of PET and PET-CT in patients with esophageal carcinoma. PET could potentially be used to distinguish treatment responders from non-responders after the first cycle of treatment. RCTs with patient-relevant endpoints will be needed in order to determine whether this is useful.
BACKGROUND: The response to neoadjuvant (radio-)chemotherapy for esophageal carcinoma is often assessed with the aid of positron-emission tomography (PET), either alone or in combination with computed tomography (PET-CT). In this review, we discuss the diagnostic validity and clinical benefit of these imaging techniques. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing PET-CT with conventional techniques such as endosonography and CT. We then determined the diagnostic validity of these methods on the basis of information from published systematic reviews, updated with further information from more recent primary studies. RESULTS: We did not find any RCTs that addressed the question of the patient-relevant benefit of PET-CT. We found 20 studies of diagnostic methods, carried out on a total of 854 patients, of whom 82.2% were male. These studies had a high potential for bias. In two of them, PET-CT was directly compared with endosonography or CT. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity varied widely across studies. 54% of all patients (median value across studies) had no histopathological response to therapy at the end of treatment. Taking a reduction of the standard uptake value (SUV) by at least 35% as a threshold criterion, we found that the median negative predictive value of PET across all studies was 86.5. CONCLUSION: There is no robust evidence for a patient-relevant benefit of PET and PET-CT in patients with esophageal carcinoma. PET could potentially be used to distinguish treatment responders from non-responders after the first cycle of treatment. RCTs with patient-relevant endpoints will be needed in order to determine whether this is useful.
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Jikke M T Omloo; Gerrit W Sloof; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Otto S Hoekstra; Hans Crezee; Ronald Boellaard; Walter L Vervenne; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Jan J B van Lanschot Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: David H Ilson; Bruce D Minsky; Geoffrey Y Ku; Valerie Rusch; Nabil Rizk; Manish Shah; David P Kelsen; Marinela Capanu; Laura Tang; Jenny Campbell; Manjit Bains Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mark van Heijl; Jikke M Omloo; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Patrick M Bossuyt; Olivier R Busch; Hugo W Tilanus; Maarten C Hulshof; Ate van der Gaast; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Han J Bonenkamp; John Th Plukker; Miguel A Cuesta; Fiebo J Ten Kate; Jan Pruim; Herman van Dekken; Jacques J Bergman; Gerrit W Sloof; J Jan van Lanschot Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Angel C Rebollo Aguirre; Carlos Ramos-Font; Román Villegas Portero; Gary J R Cook; José M Llamas Elvira; Antonio Romero Tabares Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 12.969