Yoojoo Lim1, Ji-In Bang2, Sae-Won Han3,4, Jin Chul Paeng5, Kyung-Hun Lee1, Jee Hyun Kim6, Gyeong Hoon Kang7, Seung-Yong Jeong8, Kyu Joo Park8, Tae-You Kim1,9,10. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehang-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehang-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehang-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. saewon1@snu.ac.kr. 4. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. saewon1@snu.ac.kr. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehang-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. paengjc@snu.ac.kr. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si, Geyonggi-do, South Korea. 7. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 8. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 9. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 10. Department of Molecular Medicine & Biopharmaceutical Sciences, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate whether fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) could predict treatment outcome of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Previously treated refractory mCRC patients were enrolled into a prospective biomarker study of regorafenib. For this sub-study, the results of FDG PET/CT scans at baseline and after two cycles of treatment were analyzed. Various metabolic parameters obtained from PET images were analyzed in relation to treatment outcome. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were evaluable for PET image analysis. Among various PET parameters, total lesion glycolysis (TLG) measured in the same target lesions for RECIST 1.1 analysis were the most significant in predicting prognosis, with the lowest p-value observed in TLG calculated using the margin threshold of 40 % (TLG40 %). Further analysis using TLG40 % showed significantly longer overall survival (OS) in patients with lower baseline TLG40 % (<151.8) (p = 0.003, median 14.2 vs. 9.1 months in <151.8 and ≥151.8, respectively). Patients showing higher decrease in TLG40 % after treatment showed significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.001, median 8.0 vs. 2.4 months in %ΔTLG40 % < -9.6 % and ≥ -9.6 %, respectively) and OS (p = 0.002, median 16.4 vs. 9.1 months in %ΔTLG40 % < -9.6 % and ≥ -9.6 %, respectively). The same cutoff could discriminate patients with longer survival among the patients who were under the stable disease category according to RECIST 1.1 (median PFS 8.4 vs. 6.8 months, p = 0.020; median OS 18.3 vs. 11.5 months, p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Measurement of TLG can predict treatment outcome of regorafenib in mCRC.
PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate whether fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) could predict treatment outcome of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Previously treated refractory mCRC patients were enrolled into a prospective biomarker study of regorafenib. For this sub-study, the results of FDG PET/CT scans at baseline and after two cycles of treatment were analyzed. Various metabolic parameters obtained from PET images were analyzed in relation to treatment outcome. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were evaluable for PET image analysis. Among various PET parameters, total lesion glycolysis (TLG) measured in the same target lesions for RECIST 1.1 analysis were the most significant in predicting prognosis, with the lowest p-value observed in TLG calculated using the margin threshold of 40 % (TLG40 %). Further analysis using TLG40 % showed significantly longer overall survival (OS) in patients with lower baseline TLG40 % (<151.8) (p = 0.003, median 14.2 vs. 9.1 months in <151.8 and ≥151.8, respectively). Patients showing higher decrease in TLG40 % after treatment showed significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.001, median 8.0 vs. 2.4 months in %ΔTLG40 % < -9.6 % and ≥ -9.6 %, respectively) and OS (p = 0.002, median 16.4 vs. 9.1 months in %ΔTLG40 % < -9.6 % and ≥ -9.6 %, respectively). The same cutoff could discriminate patients with longer survival among the patients who were under the stable disease category according to RECIST 1.1 (median PFS 8.4 vs. 6.8 months, p = 0.020; median OS 18.3 vs. 11.5 months, p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Measurement of TLG can predict treatment outcome of regorafenib in mCRC.
Authors: Mark J Ratain; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Keith T Flaherty; Stan B Kaye; Gary L Rosner; Martin Gore; Apurva A Desai; Amita Patnaik; Henry Q Xiong; Eric Rowinsky; James L Abbruzzese; Chenghua Xia; Ronit Simantov; Brian Schwartz; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jaafar Bennouna; Javier Sastre; Dirk Arnold; Pia Österlund; Richard Greil; Eric Van Cutsem; Roger von Moos; Jose Maria Viéitez; Olivier Bouché; Christophe Borg; Claus-Christoph Steffens; Vicente Alonso-Orduña; Christoph Schlichting; Irmarie Reyes-Rivera; Belguendouz Bendahmane; Thierry André; Stefan Kubicka Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: L F de Geus-Oei; H W M van Laarhoven; E P Visser; R Hermsen; B A van Hoorn; Y J L Kamm; P F M Krabbe; F H M Corstens; C J A Punt; W J G Oyen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Axel Grothey; Eric Van Cutsem; Alberto Sobrero; Salvatore Siena; Alfredo Falcone; Marc Ychou; Yves Humblet; Olivier Bouché; Laurent Mineur; Carlo Barone; Antoine Adenis; Josep Tabernero; Takayuki Yoshino; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Frank Cihon; Lisa Cupit; Andrea Wagner; Dirk Laurent Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Roberta Schmieder; Jens Hoffmann; Michael Becker; Ajay Bhargava; Tina Müller; Nicole Kahmann; Peter Ellinghaus; Robert Adams; André Rosenthal; Karl-Heinz Thierauch; Arne Scholz; Scott M Wilhelm; Dieter Zopf Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: E J van Helden; Y J L Vacher; W N van Wieringen; F H P van Velden; H M W Verheul; O S Hoekstra; R Boellaard; C W Menke-van der Houven van Oordt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hugo Levillain; Ivan Duran Derijckere; Gwennaëlle Marin; Thomas Guiot; Michaël Vouche; Nick Reynaert; Alain Hendlisz; Bruno Vanderlinden; Patrick Flamen Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Gijsbert M Kalisvaart; Willem Grootjans; Judith V M G Bovée; Hans Gelderblom; Jos A van der Hage; Michiel A J van de Sande; Floris H P van Velden; Johan L Bloem; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-04