| Literature DB >> 28167243 |
Seo Young Kang1, Gi Jeong Cheon1, Maria Lee2, Hee Seung Kim2, Jae-Weon Kim2, Noh-Hyun Park2, Yong Sang Song2, Hyun Hoon Chung3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral 18F-FDG uptake heterogeneity (IFH) derived from positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28167243 PMCID: PMC5293736 DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.01.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Oncol ISSN: 1936-5233 Impact factor: 4.243
Figure 1Measurement of IFH. PET (A) and PET/CT (B) for IFH measurement using an SUV-based automated contouring program in a 64-year-old female patient. Transaxial PET or PET/CT images show hypermetabolic lesion with heterogeneous distribution of FDG inside uterine cavity.
Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients Who Underwent PET/CT before Operation for Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer (n = 72)
| Characteristic | Patients | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age, median (range) | 55 (28-76) | |
| Median DFS, months (range) | 23 (6-57) | |
| FIGO stage | ||
| I | 49 | 68.1 |
| II | 3 | 4.2 |
| III | 16 | 22.2 |
| IV | 4 | 5.6 |
| Tumor grade | ||
| 1 | 33 | 45.8 |
| 2 | 28 | 38.9 |
| 3 | 11 | 15.3 |
| Recurrence | 5 | 6.9 |
| Median tumor size, cm (range) | 3.5 (1-12) | |
| Median SUVmax (range) | 11.96 (2.73-36.10) | |
| Median IFH (range) | 0.2434 (0.17-0.29) | |
| Recurrence | 4 | 5.6 |
Figure 2ROC curve analysis for determination of the cutoff value of IFH for predicting recurrence in patients with endometrial cancer. Area under the ROC curve of IFH was 0.886 (P = .010, 95% CI 0.751-1.000), and 0.2651 was determined as the optimal threshold.
Univariate Regression Analyses of Prognostic Factors for DFS in Patients with Endometrial Cancer
| Variables | Test for Progression-Free Survival | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.978 | 0.893-1.071 | .634 | |
| FIGO stage | III, IV vs I, II | 8.018 | 0.834-77.124 | .071 |
| Tumor grade | 3 vs 1, 2 | 0.032 | 0.000-598.471 | .494 |
| Tumor size | 1.356 | 0.996-1.845 | .053 | |
| Deep myometrial invasion | Present vs absent | 1.580 | 0.222-11.224 | .648 |
| LVSI | Present vs absent | 2.791 | 0.393-19.836 | .305 |
| LN metastasis | Present vs absent | 1.627 | 0.168-15.714 | .674 |
| SUVmax | 1.023 | 0.919-1.139 | .677 | |
| IFH | 9.608 | 1.182-7.809 | .012 |
Multivariate Regression Analyses of Prognostic Factors DFS in Patients with Endometrial Cancer
| Variables | Test for Progression-Free Survival | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIGO stage | III, IV vs I, II | 5.375 | 0.317-91.266 | .244 |
| Tumor size | 2.084 | 0.901-4.816 | .086 | |
| IFH | 2.545 | 1.468-8.674 | .007 |
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier survival graph shows significantly different DFS between the groups categorized by intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity below (blue line) and above (green line) the optimal threshold (0.2651) (P < .001, log-rank test).
Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients Who Experienced Recurrence after Treatment for Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer (n = 4)
| Age (Year) | FIGO Stage | Tumor Grade | DFS (Months) | SUVmax | IFH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | 58 | II | 2 | 6 | 12.08 | 0.2873 |
| Patient 2 | 60 | IIIA | 3 | 22 | 8.95 | 0.2732 |
| Patient 3 | 38 | IIIC | 3 | 12 | 20.42 | 0.2658 |
| Patient 4 | 45 | IVB | 2 | 11 | 19.52 | 0.2512 |
Clinicopathological and PET/CT-Derived Characteristics of Patients without and with Recurrence (n = 72)
| Variable | Without Recurrence ( | With Recurrence ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Age (year) | 53.412 | 10.315 | 50.250 | 10.532 | .596 |
| Tumor size | 4.282 | 2.624 | 7.325 | 1.118 | .004 |
| SUVmax | 13.660 | 8.762 | 15.243 | 5.618 | .627 |
| IFH | 0.238 | 0.024 | 0.269 | 0.015 | .018 |
| DFS (months) | 25.559 | 12.691 | 12.750 | 6.702 | .022 |