Pierre Lovinfosse1, Benjamin Koopmansch2, Frederic Lambert2, Sébastien Jodogne3, Gaelle Kustermans4, Mathieu Hatt5, Dimitris Visvikis5, Laurence Seidel6, Marc Polus7, Adelin Albert6, Philippe Delvenne4, Roland Hustinx1. 1. 1 Nuclear Medicine and Oncological Imaging Division, Medical Physics Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium. 2. 2 Center for Human Genetic, Molecular Haemato-Oncology Unit, UniLab Lg, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium. 3. 3 Department of Medical Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium. 4. 4 Department of Pathology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium. 5. 5 LaTIM, INSERM UMR 1101, IBSAM, University of Brest, France. 6. 6 Department of Biostatistics and Medico-economic Information, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium. 7. 7 Department of Gastro-enterology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treating metastatic colorectal cancer with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies is recommended only for patients whose tumour does not harbour mutations of KRAS or NRAS. The aim of this study was to investigate the biology of rectal cancers and specifically to evaluate the relationship between fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) intensity and heterogeneity parameters and their mutational status. METHODS: 151 patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent a baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT within a median time interval of 27 days of tumour tissue sampling, which was performed before any treatment. Standardized uptake values (SUVs), volume-based parameters and texture analysis were studied. We retrospectively performed KRAS genotyping on codons 12, 13, 61, 117 and 146, NRAS genotyping on codons 12, 13 and 61 and BRAF on codon 600. Associations between PET/CT parameters and the mutational status were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 83 (55%) patients had an RAS mutation: 74 KRAS and 9 NRAS, while 68 patients had no mutation (wild-type tumours). No patient had BRAF mutation. First-order features based on intensity histogram analysis were significantly associated with RAS mutations: maximum SUV (SUVmax) (p-value = 0.002), mean SUV (p-value = 0.006), skewness (p-value = 0.049), SUV standard deviation (p-value = 0.001) and SUV coefficient of variation (SUVcov) (p-value = 0.001). Both SUVcov and SUVmax showed an area under the curve of 0.65 with sensitivity of 56% and 69%, respectively, and specificity of 64% and 52%, respectively. None of the volume-based (metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis), nor local or regional textural features were associated with the presence of RAS mutations. CONCLUSION: Although rectal cancers with KRAS or NRAS mutations display a significantly higher glucose metabolism than wild-type cancers, the accuracy of the currently proposed quantitative metrics extracted from (18)F-FDG PET/CT is not sufficiently high for playing a meaningful clinical role. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: RAS-mutated rectal cancers have a significantly higher glucose metabolism. However, the accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT quantitative metrics is not as such as the technique could play a clinical role.
OBJECTIVE: Treating metastatic colorectal cancer with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies is recommended only for patients whose tumour does not harbour mutations of KRAS or NRAS. The aim of this study was to investigate the biology of rectal cancers and specifically to evaluate the relationship between fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) intensity and heterogeneity parameters and their mutational status. METHODS: 151 patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent a baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT within a median time interval of 27 days of tumour tissue sampling, which was performed before any treatment. Standardized uptake values (SUVs), volume-based parameters and texture analysis were studied. We retrospectively performed KRAS genotyping on codons 12, 13, 61, 117 and 146, NRAS genotyping on codons 12, 13 and 61 and BRAF on codon 600. Associations between PET/CT parameters and the mutational status were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 83 (55%) patients had an RAS mutation: 74 KRAS and 9 NRAS, while 68 patients had no mutation (wild-type tumours). No patient had BRAF mutation. First-order features based on intensity histogram analysis were significantly associated with RAS mutations: maximum SUV (SUVmax) (p-value = 0.002), mean SUV (p-value = 0.006), skewness (p-value = 0.049), SUV standard deviation (p-value = 0.001) and SUV coefficient of variation (SUVcov) (p-value = 0.001). Both SUVcov and SUVmax showed an area under the curve of 0.65 with sensitivity of 56% and 69%, respectively, and specificity of 64% and 52%, respectively. None of the volume-based (metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis), nor local or regional textural features were associated with the presence of RAS mutations. CONCLUSION: Although rectal cancers with KRAS or NRAS mutations display a significantly higher glucose metabolism than wild-type cancers, the accuracy of the currently proposed quantitative metrics extracted from (18)F-FDG PET/CT is not sufficiently high for playing a meaningful clinical role. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: RAS-mutated rectal cancers have a significantly higher glucose metabolism. However, the accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT quantitative metrics is not as such as the technique could play a clinical role.
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: Carlos Caicedo; Maria Jose Garcia-Velloso; Maria Dolores Lozano; Tania Labiano; Carmen Vigil Diaz; Jose Maria Lopez-Picazo; Alfonso Gurpide; Javier J Zulueta; Javier Zulueta; Jose Angel Richter Echevarria; Jose Luis Perez Gracia Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gary J R Cook; Connie Yip; Muhammad Siddique; Vicky Goh; Sugama Chicklore; Arunabha Roy; Paul Marsden; Shahreen Ahmad; David Landau Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: F Loupakis; A Ruzzo; C Cremolini; B Vincenzi; L Salvatore; D Santini; G Masi; I Stasi; E Canestrari; E Rulli; I Floriani; K Bencardino; N Galluccio; V Catalano; G Tonini; M Magnani; G Fontanini; F Basolo; A Falcone; F Graziano Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 7.640
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