Jeong Won Lee1,2, Ki Hyun Seo3, Eun-Seog Kim4, Sang Mi Lee5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, International St. Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Korea. 2. Institute for Integrative Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, International St. Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Korea. 3. Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, Korea. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, Korea. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, 23-20 Byeongmyeong-dong, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan, 330-721, Chungcheongnam-do, Korea. gareen@naver.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the relationship between bone marrow (BM) FDG uptake on PET/CT and serum inflammatory markers and to evaluate the prognostic value of BM FDG uptake for predicting clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: One hundred and six NSCLC patients who underwent FDG PET/CT for staging work-up and received chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. Mean BM FDG uptake (BM SUV) and BM-to-liver uptake ratio (BLR) were measured, along with volumetric parameters of PET/CT. The relationship of BM SUV and BLR with hematologic parameters and serum inflammatory markers was evaluated. Prognostic values of BM SUV and BLR for predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: BM SUV and BLR were significantly correlated with white blood cell count and C-reactive protein level. On univariate analysis, BLR was a significant prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. On multivariate analysis, TNM stage and BLR were independent prognostic factors for PFS, and only TNM stage was an independent prognostic factor for OS. CONCLUSIONS: In NSCLC patients, FDG uptake of BM reflects the systemic inflammatory response and can be used as a biomarker to identify patients with poor prognosis. KEY POINTS: • Bone marrow FDG uptake is correlated with serum inflammatory markers. • Bone marrow FDG uptake is an independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival. • Bone marrow FDG uptake can provide information on predicting lung cancer progression.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the relationship between bone marrow (BM) FDG uptake on PET/CT and serum inflammatory markers and to evaluate the prognostic value of BM FDG uptake for predicting clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: One hundred and six NSCLCpatients who underwent FDG PET/CT for staging work-up and received chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. Mean BM FDG uptake (BM SUV) and BM-to-liver uptake ratio (BLR) were measured, along with volumetric parameters of PET/CT. The relationship of BM SUV and BLR with hematologic parameters and serum inflammatory markers was evaluated. Prognostic values of BM SUV and BLR for predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: BM SUV and BLR were significantly correlated with white blood cell count and C-reactive protein level. On univariate analysis, BLR was a significant prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. On multivariate analysis, TNM stage and BLR were independent prognostic factors for PFS, and only TNM stage was an independent prognostic factor for OS. CONCLUSIONS: In NSCLCpatients, FDG uptake of BM reflects the systemic inflammatory response and can be used as a biomarker to identify patients with poor prognosis. KEY POINTS: • Bone marrow FDG uptake is correlated with serum inflammatory markers. • Bone marrow FDG uptake is an independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival. • Bone marrow FDG uptake can provide information on predicting lung cancer progression.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone marrow; FDG; Lung cancer; Positron emission tomography; Prognosis
Authors: David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Gerold Bepler; Matthew G Blum; Andrew Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Thierry Jahan; Mohammad Jahanzeb; David H Johnson; Anne Kessinger; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Quynh-Thu Le; Inga T Lennes; Renato Martins; Janis O'Malley; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; George R Simon; Scott J Swanson; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Antoine Leimgruber; Andreas Möller; Sarah J Everitt; Marine Chabrot; David L Ball; Ben Solomon; Michael MacManus; Rodney J Hicks Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Vivek Mittal; Tina El Rayes; Navneet Narula; Timothy E McGraw; Nasser K Altorki; Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2016 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Moon-Soo Lee; Il Kwon Chung; Myoung Won Son; Young Sin Cho; Sang Mi Lee Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Sung Yong Kim; Sun Wook Han; Jong Eun Lee; Hyun Ju Lee; Nam Hun Heo; Sang Mi Lee Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: David Lang; Linda Ritzberger; Vanessa Rambousek; Andreas Horner; Romana Wass; Kaveh Akbari; Bernhard Kaiser; Jürgen Kronbichler; Bernd Lamprecht; Michael Gabriel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sarah A Mattonen; Guido A Davidzon; Jalen Benson; Ann N C Leung; Minal Vasanawala; George Horng; Joseph B Shrager; Sandy Napel; Viswam S Nair Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 29.146