Pierpaolo Alongi1, Federico Caobelli2, Roberta Gentile3, Alessandro Stefano4, Giorgio Russo4, Domenico Albano5, Sergio Baldari3, Maria Carla Gilardi4, Massimo Midiri6,5. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Unit, San Raffaele G. Giglio Institute, Contrada Pietrapollastra-Pisciotto, 90015, Cefalù, Italy. alongi.pierpaolo@gmail.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy. 4. IBFM-CNR, Cefalù, Italy. 5. DIBIMEF - Sezione di Scienze Radiologiche, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 6. Department of Radiological Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Unit, San Raffaele G. Giglio Institute, Contrada Pietrapollastra-Pisciotto, 90015, Cefalù, Italy.
Abstract
AIM: A small number of studies evaluated the detection rate of lesions from bladder carcinoma (BC) of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the restaging process. However, the prognostic role of FDG PET/CT still remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy, the effect upon treatment decision, and the prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected recurrent BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients affected by BC underwent FDG PET/CT for restaging purpose. The diagnostic accuracy of visually interpreted FDG PET/CT was assessed compared to histology (n = 8), other diagnostic imaging modalities (contrast-enhanced CT in 38/41 patients and MRI in 15/41) and clinical follow-up (n = 41). Semiquantitative PET values (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUL, MTV, TLG) were calculated using a graph-based method. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by using Kaplan-Meier curves. The risk of progression (hazard ratio, HR) was computed by Cox regression analysis by considering all the available variables. RESULTS: PET was considered positive in 21 of 41 patients. Of these, recurrent BC was confirmed in 20 (95 %). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT were 87 %, 94 %, 95 %, 85 %, 90 %. AUC was 0.9 (95 %IC 0.8-1). Bayesian positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.5 and 0.13, respectively. FDG PET/CT findings modified the therapeutic approach in 16 patients (modified therapy in 10 PET-positive patients, watch-and-wait in six PET-negative patients). PFS was significantly longer in patients with negative scan vs. those with pathological findings (85 % vs. 24 %, p < 0.05; HR = 12.4; p = 0.001). Moreover, an unremarkable study was associated with a longer OS (88 % vs. 47 % after 2 years and 87 % vs. 25 % after 3 years, respectively, p < 0.05). Standardized uptake value (SUV)max > 6 and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) > 8.5 were recognized as the most accurate thresholds to predict PFS (2-year PFS 62 % for SUVmax < 6 vs. 15 % for SUVmax > 6, p = 0.018; 2-year PFS 66 % for TLG < 8.5 vs. 18 % for TLG > 8.5, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: A very good diagnostic performance for FDG PET/CT was confirmed in patients with suspected recurrent BC. FDG PET/CT allowed for a change in treatment decision in about 40 % of cases and showed an important prognostic value in assessing PFS and OS.
AIM: A small number of studies evaluated the detection rate of lesions from bladder carcinoma (BC) of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the restaging process. However, the prognostic role of FDG PET/CT still remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy, the effect upon treatment decision, and the prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected recurrent BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients affected by BC underwent FDG PET/CT for restaging purpose. The diagnostic accuracy of visually interpreted FDG PET/CT was assessed compared to histology (n = 8), other diagnostic imaging modalities (contrast-enhanced CT in 38/41 patients and MRI in 15/41) and clinical follow-up (n = 41). Semiquantitative PET values (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUL, MTV, TLG) were calculated using a graph-based method. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by using Kaplan-Meier curves. The risk of progression (hazard ratio, HR) was computed by Cox regression analysis by considering all the available variables. RESULTS: PET was considered positive in 21 of 41 patients. Of these, recurrent BC was confirmed in 20 (95 %). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT were 87 %, 94 %, 95 %, 85 %, 90 %. AUC was 0.9 (95 %IC 0.8-1). Bayesian positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.5 and 0.13, respectively. FDG PET/CT findings modified the therapeutic approach in 16 patients (modified therapy in 10 PET-positive patients, watch-and-wait in six PET-negative patients). PFS was significantly longer in patients with negative scan vs. those with pathological findings (85 % vs. 24 %, p < 0.05; HR = 12.4; p = 0.001). Moreover, an unremarkable study was associated with a longer OS (88 % vs. 47 % after 2 years and 87 % vs. 25 % after 3 years, respectively, p < 0.05). Standardized uptake value (SUV)max > 6 and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) > 8.5 were recognized as the most accurate thresholds to predict PFS (2-year PFS 62 % for SUVmax < 6 vs. 15 % for SUVmax > 6, p = 0.018; 2-year PFS 66 % for TLG < 8.5 vs. 18 % for TLG > 8.5, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: A very good diagnostic performance for FDG PET/CT was confirmed in patients with suspected recurrent BC. FDG PET/CT allowed for a change in treatment decision in about 40 % of cases and showed an important prognostic value in assessing PFS and OS.
Authors: Andrea B Apolo; Jamie Riches; Heiko Schöder; Oguz Akin; Alisa Trout; Matthew I Milowsky; Dean F Bajorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marko Babjuk; Maximilian Burger; Richard Zigeuner; Shahrokh F Shariat; Bas W G van Rhijn; Eva Compérat; Richard J Sylvester; Eero Kaasinen; Andreas Böhle; Joan Palou Redorta; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marye J Boers-Sonderen; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Ingrid M E Desar; Winette T A van der Graaf; Wim J G Oyen; Petronella B Ottevanger; Carla M L van Herpen Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Massimo Galia; Domenico Albano; Alberto Bruno; Antonino Agrusa; Giorgio Romano; Giuseppe Di Buono; Francesco Agnello; Giuseppe Salvaggio; Ludovico La Grutta; Massimo Midiri; Roberto Lagalla Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: D Giambelluca; D Albano; E Giambelluca; A Bruno; F Panzuto; A Agrusa; G Di Buono; F Cannizzaro; Cesare Gagliardo; M Midiri; R Lagalla; G Salvaggio Journal: G Chir Date: 2017 Sep-Oct
Authors: Valérie Fonteyne; Piet Dirix; Sara Junius; Elke Rammant; Piet Ost; Gert De Meerleer; Martijn Swimberghe; Karel Decaestecker Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Maria Lucia Iacovino; Chiara Carmen Miceli; Marco De Felice; Biagio Barone; Luca Pompella; Francesco Chiancone; Erika Di Zazzo; Giuseppe Tirino; Carminia Maria Della Corte; Ciro Imbimbo; Ferdinando De Vita; Felice Crocetto Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Vincenzo Cuccurullo; Giuseppe Danilo Di Stasio; Francesco Manti; Pierpaolo Arcuri; Rocco Damiano; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11