PURPOSE: Metabolic activity, as defined by F-FDG uptake on PET, is a prognostic marker for multiple malignancies; however, no study has examined the prognostic value of imaging with FDG PET in stage I and II pancreatic cancer. We examined the value of PET FDG uptake in early-stage pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: We identified patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer (I-II) who had FDG PET scan performed as part of their preoperative evaluation. The patients were divided into either high or low FDG uptake according to the median primary tumor standard uptake value (SUVmax). Our primary end points were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier estimate was used for survival analysis. Pathologic data were compared using the Fisher exact and χ tests. RESULTS: One hundred five patients were identified: 51 patients with low FDG uptake and 54 patients with high FDG uptake. Eighty-five patients (81%) had PET avid tumors, whereas 20 (19%) patients did not. High FDG uptake correlated with pathologic stage (P = 0.012). Patients with low FDG uptake had significantly better median OS than patients with high FDG uptake (28 vs. 16 months; P = 0.036). Patients with low-FDG uptake had significantly longer median RFS than patients with high FDG uptake (14 vs. 12 months; P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Low FDG uptake in PET scans in patients with stage I and II pancreatic cancer correlates with improved OS and RFS. This supports the concept that glucose metabolic pathways are important in pancreatic cancer biology and that PET scan activity can be used as a prognostic biomarker after pancreatectomy.
PURPOSE: Metabolic activity, as defined by F-FDG uptake on PET, is a prognostic marker for multiple malignancies; however, no study has examined the prognostic value of imaging with FDG PET in stage I and II pancreatic cancer. We examined the value of PET FDG uptake in early-stage pancreatic cancerpatients. METHODS: We identified patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer (I-II) who had FDG PET scan performed as part of their preoperative evaluation. The patients were divided into either high or low FDG uptake according to the median primary tumor standard uptake value (SUVmax). Our primary end points were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier estimate was used for survival analysis. Pathologic data were compared using the Fisher exact and χ tests. RESULTS: One hundred five patients were identified: 51 patients with low FDG uptake and 54 patients with high FDG uptake. Eighty-five patients (81%) had PET avid tumors, whereas 20 (19%) patients did not. High FDG uptake correlated with pathologic stage (P = 0.012). Patients with low FDG uptake had significantly better median OS than patients with high FDG uptake (28 vs. 16 months; P = 0.036). Patients with low-FDG uptake had significantly longer median RFS than patients with high FDG uptake (14 vs. 12 months; P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Low FDG uptake in PET scans in patients with stage I and II pancreatic cancer correlates with improved OS and RFS. This supports the concept that glucose metabolic pathways are important in pancreatic cancer biology and that PET scan activity can be used as a prognostic biomarker after pancreatectomy.
Authors: A Kornberg; B Küpper; K Thrum; K Katenkamp; J Steenbeck; A Sappler; O Habrecht; D Gottschild Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: S Shiomi; S Nishiguchi; H Ishizu; Y Iwata; N Sasaki; A Tamori; D Habu; T Takeda; S Kubo; H Ochi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: O Turrini; F Paye; P Bachellier; A Sauvanet; A Sa Cunha; Y P Le Treut; M Adham; J Y Mabrut; L Chiche; J R Delpero Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; Dimitrios Karantanis; Gustavo Mercier; Patrick J Peller; Lisa A Kachnic; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Saila P Kauhanen; Gaber Komar; Marko P Seppänen; Kirsti I Dean; Heikki R Minn; Sami A Kajander; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Kalle Alanen; Ronald J Borra; Pauli A Puolakkainen; Pirjo Nuutila; Jari T Ovaska Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Joshua S Scheuermann; Janet S Reddin; Adam Opanowski; Paul E Kinahan; Barry A Siegel; Lalitha K Shankar; Joel S Karp Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Chad A Barnes; Mohammed Aldakkak; Callisia N Clarke; Kathleen K Christians; Daniel Bucklan; Michael Holt; Parag Tolat; Paul S Ritch; Ben George; William A Hall; Beth A Erickson; Douglas B Evans; Susan Tsai Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Miaoyan Wei; Bingxin Gu; Shaoli Song; Bo Zhang; Wei Wang; Jin Xu; Xianjun Yu; Si Shi Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Fatemeh Kaghazchi; Austin J Borja; Emily C Hancin; Abhijit Bhattaru; Donald K E Detchou; Siavash Mehdizadeh Seraj; Chaitanya Rojulpote; Soren Hess; Lorenzo Nardo; Peter E Gabriel; Scott M Damrauer; Thomas J Werner; Abass Alavi; Mona-Elisabeth Revheim Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Christopher Montemagno; Shamir Cassim; Nicolas De Leiris; Jérôme Durivault; Marc Faraggi; Gilles Pagès Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 5.923