John M Findlay1,2, Richard S Gillies3, James M Franklin4, Eugene J Teoh4, Greg E Jones3,5, Sara di Carlo3,6, Fergus V Gleeson4, Nicholas D Maynard3, Kevin M Bradley4, Mark R Middleton7. 1. Oxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. john.findlay@oncology.ox.ac.uk. 2. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. john.findlay@oncology.ox.ac.uk. 3. Oxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. 5. Royal Berkshire Hospital, Craven Road, Reading, RG1 5AN, UK. 6. Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. 7. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is unknown whether restaging oesophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is more sensitive than contrast-enhanced CT for disease progression. We aimed to determine this and stratify risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients staged before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) by (18)F-FDG PET-CT and restaged with CT or PET-CT in a single centre (2006-2014). RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-three patients were restaged (103 CT, 280 PET-CT). Incurable disease was detected by CT in 3 (2.91 %) and PET-CT in 17 (6.07 %). Despite restaging unsuspected incurable disease was encountered at surgery in 34/336 patients (10.1 %). PET-CT was more sensitive than CT (p = 0.005, McNemar's test). A new classification of FDG-avid nodal stage (mN) before NAC (plus tumour FDG-avid length) predicted subsequent progression, independent of conventional nodal stage. The presence of FDG-avid nodes after NAC and an impassable tumour stratified risk of incurable disease at surgery into high (75.0 %; both risk factors), medium (22.4 %; either), and low risk (3.87 %; neither) groups (p < 0.001). Decision theory supported restaging PET-CT. CONCLUSIONS: PET-CT is more sensitive than CT for detecting interval progression; however, it is insufficient in at least higher risk patients. mN stage and response (mNR) plus primary tumour characteristics can stratify this risk simply. KEY POINTS: • Restaging (18) F-FDG-PET-CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies metastases in 6 % of patients • Restaging (18) F-FDG-PET-CT is more sensitive than CT for detecting interval progression • Despite this, at surgery 10 % of patients had unsuspected incurable disease • New concepts (FDG-avid nodal stage and response) plus tumour impassability stratify risk • Higher risk (if not all) patients may benefit from additional restaging modalities.
OBJECTIVES: It is unknown whether restaging oesophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is more sensitive than contrast-enhanced CT for disease progression. We aimed to determine this and stratify risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients staged before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) by (18)F-FDG PET-CT and restaged with CT or PET-CT in a single centre (2006-2014). RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-three patients were restaged (103 CT, 280 PET-CT). Incurable disease was detected by CT in 3 (2.91 %) and PET-CT in 17 (6.07 %). Despite restaging unsuspected incurable disease was encountered at surgery in 34/336 patients (10.1 %). PET-CT was more sensitive than CT (p = 0.005, McNemar's test). A new classification of FDG-avid nodal stage (mN) before NAC (plus tumour FDG-avid length) predicted subsequent progression, independent of conventional nodal stage. The presence of FDG-avid nodes after NAC and an impassable tumour stratified risk of incurable disease at surgery into high (75.0 %; both risk factors), medium (22.4 %; either), and low risk (3.87 %; neither) groups (p < 0.001). Decision theory supported restaging PET-CT. CONCLUSIONS: PET-CT is more sensitive than CT for detecting interval progression; however, it is insufficient in at least higher risk patients. mN stage and response (mNR) plus primary tumour characteristics can stratify this risk simply. KEY POINTS: • Restaging (18) F-FDG-PET-CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies metastases in 6 % of patients • Restaging (18) F-FDG-PET-CT is more sensitive than CT for detecting interval progression • Despite this, at surgery 10 % of patients had unsuspected incurable disease • New concepts (FDG-avid nodal stage and response) plus tumour impassability stratify risk • Higher risk (if not all) patients may benefit from additional restaging modalities.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer staging; Computed tomography; Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Positron-emission tomography
Authors: Bryan F Meyers; Robert J Downey; Paul A Decker; Robert J Keenan; Barry A Siegel; Robert J Cerfolio; Rodney J Landreneau; Carolyn E Reed; Dennis M Balfe; Farrokh Dehdashti; Karla V Ballman; Valerie W Rusch; Joe B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Francesco De Cobelli; Francesco Giganti; Elena Orsenigo; Michaela Cellina; Antonio Esposito; Giulia Agostini; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Alessandro Ambrosi; Carlo Socci; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; Richard van Hillegersberg; Frederiek M Lever; Irene M Lips; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Gert J Meijer; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Marco van Vulpen; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J M Findlay; K M Bradley; E J Maile; B Braden; J Maw; J Phillips-Hughes; R S Gillies; N D Maynard; M R Middleton Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Kazuto Harada; Xuemei Wang; Yusuke Shimodaira; Tara Sagebiel; Manoop S Bhutani; Jeffrey H Lee; Brian Weston; Elena Elimova; Quan Lin; Fatemeh G Amlashi; Dilsa Mizrak Kaya; Anthony Lopez; Mariela A Blum Murphy; Jack A Roth; Stephen G Swisher; Heath D Skinner; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jane E Rogers; Irene Thomas; Dipen M Maru; Ritsuko Komaki; Garrett Walsh; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Sophie E Vollenbrock; Jolanda M van Dieren; Francine E M Voncken; Sietze T van Turenhout; Liudmila L Kodach; Koen J Hartemink; Johanna W van Sandick; Berthe M P Aleman; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lucas Goense; Jelle P Ruurda; Brett W Carter; Penny Fang; Linus Ho; Gert J Meijer; Richard van Hillegersberg; Wayne L Hofstetter; Steven H Lin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: John M Findlay; Edward Dickson; Cristina Fiorani; Kevin M Bradley; Somnath Mukherjee; Richard S Gillies; Nicholas D Maynard; Mark R Middleton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kieran G Foley; Anita Lavery; Eoin Napier; David Campbell; Martin M Eatock; Richard D Kennedy; Kevin M Bradley; Richard C Turkington Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: John M Findlay; Stefan Antonowicz; Ashvina Segaran; Jihene El Kafsi; Alexa Zhang; Kevin M Bradley; Richard S Gillies; Nicholas D Maynard; Mark R Middleton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 5.315