Peter S N van Rossum1, David V Fried2, Lifei Zhang3, Wayne L Hofstetter4, Marco van Vulpen5, Gert J Meijer5, Laurence E Court6, Steven H Lin7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston, Houston, Texas; and. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas SHLin@mdanderson.org LECourt@mdanderson.org. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas SHLin@mdanderson.org LECourt@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: A reliable prediction of a pathologic complete response (pathCR) to chemoradiotherapy before surgery for esophageal cancer would enable investigators to study the feasibility and outcome of an organ-preserving strategy after chemoradiotherapy. So far no clinical parameters or diagnostic studies are able to accurately predict which patients will achieve a pathCR. The aim of this study was to determine whether subjective and quantitative assessment of baseline and postchemoradiation (18)F-FDG PET can improve the accuracy of predicting pathCR to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer beyond clinical predictors. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the need for written informed consent was waived. Clinical parameters along with subjective and quantitative parameters from baseline and postchemoradiation (18)F-FDG PET were derived from 217 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. The associations between these parameters and pathCR were studied in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Four prediction models were constructed and internally validated using bootstrapping to study the incremental predictive values of subjective assessment of (18)F-FDG PET, conventional quantitative metabolic features, and comprehensive (18)F-FDG PET texture/geometry features, respectively. The clinical benefit of (18)F-FDG PET was determined using decision-curve analysis. RESULTS: A pathCR was found in 59 (27%) patients. A clinical prediction model (corrected c-index, 0.67) was improved by adding (18)F-FDG PET-based subjective assessment of response (corrected c-index, 0.72). This latter model was slightly improved by the addition of 1 conventional quantitative metabolic feature only (i.e., postchemoradiation total lesion glycolysis; corrected c-index, 0.73), and even more by subsequently adding 4 comprehensive (18)F-FDG PET texture/geometry features (corrected c-index, 0.77). However, at a decision threshold of 0.9 or higher, representing a clinically relevant predictive value for pathCR at which one may be willing to omit surgery, there was no clear incremental value. CONCLUSION: Subjective and quantitative assessment of (18)F-FDG PET provides statistical incremental value for predicting pathCR after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. However, the discriminatory improvement beyond clinical predictors does not translate into a clinically relevant benefit that could change decision making.
UNLABELLED: A reliable prediction of a pathologic complete response (pathCR) to chemoradiotherapy before surgery for esophageal cancer would enable investigators to study the feasibility and outcome of an organ-preserving strategy after chemoradiotherapy. So far no clinical parameters or diagnostic studies are able to accurately predict which patients will achieve a pathCR. The aim of this study was to determine whether subjective and quantitative assessment of baseline and postchemoradiation (18)F-FDG PET can improve the accuracy of predicting pathCR to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer beyond clinical predictors. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the need for written informed consent was waived. Clinical parameters along with subjective and quantitative parameters from baseline and postchemoradiation (18)F-FDG PET were derived from 217 esophageal adenocarcinomapatients who underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. The associations between these parameters and pathCR were studied in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Four prediction models were constructed and internally validated using bootstrapping to study the incremental predictive values of subjective assessment of (18)F-FDG PET, conventional quantitative metabolic features, and comprehensive (18)F-FDG PET texture/geometry features, respectively. The clinical benefit of (18)F-FDG PET was determined using decision-curve analysis. RESULTS: A pathCR was found in 59 (27%) patients. A clinical prediction model (corrected c-index, 0.67) was improved by adding (18)F-FDG PET-based subjective assessment of response (corrected c-index, 0.72). This latter model was slightly improved by the addition of 1 conventional quantitative metabolic feature only (i.e., postchemoradiation total lesion glycolysis; corrected c-index, 0.73), and even more by subsequently adding 4 comprehensive (18)F-FDG PET texture/geometry features (corrected c-index, 0.77). However, at a decision threshold of 0.9 or higher, representing a clinically relevant predictive value for pathCR at which one may be willing to omit surgery, there was no clear incremental value. CONCLUSION: Subjective and quantitative assessment of (18)F-FDG PET provides statistical incremental value for predicting pathCR after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. However, the discriminatory improvement beyond clinical predictors does not translate into a clinically relevant benefit that could change decision making.
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Rachel B Ger; Carlos E Cardenas; Brian M Anderson; Jinzhong Yang; Dennis S Mackin; Lifei Zhang; Laurence E Court Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Frank P Vleggaar; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Lucas Goense; Alicia S Borggreve; Sophie E Heethuis; Astrid Lhmw van Lier; Richard van Hillegersberg; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Sebastian Zschaeck; Frank Hofheinz; Klaus Zöphel; Rebecca Bütof; Christina Jentsch; Julia Schmollack; Steffen Löck; Jörg Kotzerke; Gustavo Baretton; Jürgen Weitz; Michael Baumann; Mechthild Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; Cai Xu; David V Fried; Lucas Goense; Laurence E Court; Steven H Lin Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241