Irene A Burger1, Ruben Casanova2, Seraina Steiger3, Lars Husmann4, Paul Stolzmann4, Martin W Huellner4, Alessandra Curioni5, Sven Hillinger6, C Ross Schmidtlein7, Alex Soltermann2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland irene.burger@usz.ch. 2. Department of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; and. 7. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Assessment of tumor response after chemotherapy using (18)F-FDG PET metrics is gaining acceptance. Several studies have suggested that the parameters metabolically active tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) are superior to SUVmax for measuring tumor burden. However, the measurement of MTV and TLG is still controversial; the most common method uses an absolute threshold of 42% of SUVmax Recently, we implemented a background-adaptive method to determine the background-subtracted lesion activity (BSL) and the background-subtracted volume (BSV). In this study, we investigated the correlation between such PET metrics and histopathologic response in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: Forty-four NSCLC patients were retrospectively identified. Their PET/CT data on both types of scan before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed regarding SUVmax, MTV, TLG, BSL, and BSV, as well as the relative changes in these parameters. The tumor regression score as an indicator of histopathologic response was scored on hematoxylin- and eosin-stained sections of the surgical specimens using a 4-tiered scale (scores 1-4). The correlation between score and the absolute and relative PET metrics after chemotherapy was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation tests. RESULTS: Tumors that demonstrated a good response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy had significantly lower (18)F-FDG activity than nonresponding tumors (scores 3 and 4: SUVmax, 4.2 [range, 1.8-7.9] vs. scores 1 and 2: SUVmax, 8.1 [range, 1.4-40.4]; P = 0.001). The same was found for change in SUVmax and score (P = 0.001). PET volume metrics based on a 42% fixed threshold for SUVmax did not correlate with score (TLG, P = 0.505; MTV, P = 0.386). However, both of the background activity-based PET volume metrics-BSL and BSV-significantly correlated with score (P < 0.001 each). CONCLUSION: PET volume metrics based on background-adaptive methods correlate better with histopathologic tumor regression score in NSCLC patients under neoadjuvant chemotherapy than algorithms and methods using a fixed threshold (42% SUVmax).
UNLABELLED: Assessment of tumor response after chemotherapy using (18)F-FDG PET metrics is gaining acceptance. Several studies have suggested that the parameters metabolically active tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) are superior to SUVmax for measuring tumor burden. However, the measurement of MTV and TLG is still controversial; the most common method uses an absolute threshold of 42% of SUVmax Recently, we implemented a background-adaptive method to determine the background-subtracted lesion activity (BSL) and the background-subtracted volume (BSV). In this study, we investigated the correlation between such PET metrics and histopathologic response in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: Forty-four NSCLCpatients were retrospectively identified. Their PET/CT data on both types of scan before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed regarding SUVmax, MTV, TLG, BSL, and BSV, as well as the relative changes in these parameters. The tumor regression score as an indicator of histopathologic response was scored on hematoxylin- and eosin-stained sections of the surgical specimens using a 4-tiered scale (scores 1-4). The correlation between score and the absolute and relative PET metrics after chemotherapy was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation tests. RESULTS:Tumors that demonstrated a good response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy had significantly lower (18)F-FDG activity than nonresponding tumors (scores 3 and 4: SUVmax, 4.2 [range, 1.8-7.9] vs. scores 1 and 2: SUVmax, 8.1 [range, 1.4-40.4]; P = 0.001). The same was found for change in SUVmax and score (P = 0.001). PET volume metrics based on a 42% fixed threshold for SUVmax did not correlate with score (TLG, P = 0.505; MTV, P = 0.386). However, both of the background activity-based PET volume metrics-BSL and BSV-significantly correlated with score (P < 0.001 each). CONCLUSION: PET volume metrics based on background-adaptive methods correlate better with histopathologic tumor regression score in NSCLCpatients under neoadjuvant chemotherapy than algorithms and methods using a fixed threshold (42% SUVmax).
Authors: Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 1999-05
Authors: Claude Nahmias; Wahid T Hanna; Lindi M Wahl; Misty J Long; Karl F Hubner; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Edwin A Usmanij; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Esther G C Troost; Liesbeth Peters-Bax; Erik H F M van der Heijden; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Wim J G Oyen; Olga C J Schuurbiers; Johan Bussink Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Irene A Burger; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Aditya Apte; Bradley J Beattie; John L Humm; Mithat Gonen; Steven M Larson; C Ross Schmidtlein Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Young Mi Seol; Bo Ran Kwon; Moo Kon Song; Young Jin Choi; Ho Jin Shin; Joo Seop Chung; Goon Jae Cho; Jin Chun Lee; Byung Joo Lee; Soo Geun Wang; Hak Jin Kim; Won Taek Kim; Seung Jang Kim; Eun Young Yun Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ali Salavati; Fenghai Duan; Bradley S Snyder; Bo Wei; Sina Houshmand; Benjapa Khiewvan; Adam Opanowski; Charles B Simone; Barry A Siegel; Mitchell Machtay; Abass Alavi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Jeremy Setton; Aditya P Apte; Milan Grkovski; Robert J Young; Heiko Schöder; Wade L Thorstad; Nancy Y Lee; Joseph O Deasy; Jung Hun Oh Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ryan P Reddy; C Ross Schmidtlein; Romina G Giancipoli; Audrey Mauguen; Daniel LaFontaine; Heiko Schoder; Lisa Bodei Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Mubarik A Arshad; Samuel Gitau; Henry Tam; Won-Ho E Park; Neva H Patel; Andrea Rockall; Eric O Aboagye; Nishat Bharwani; Tara D Barwick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maren Marie Sjaastad Andreassen; Pål Erik Goa; Torill Eidhammer Sjøbakk; Roja Hedayati; Hans Petter Eikesdal; Callie Deng; Agnes Østlie; Steinar Lundgren; Tone Frost Bathen; Neil Peter Jerome Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 2.310