PURPOSE: FDG PET is effective in treatment response evaluation of cancer. However, there is no standard method for quantitative evaluation of FDG PET, particularly regarding cytostatic drugs. We compared various FDG PET quantitative methods in terms of response determination. METHODS: A total of 39 refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients who received a multikinase inhibitor treatment were included. Baseline and posttreatment FDG PET/CT scans were performed before and two cycles after treatment. Standardized uptake value (SUV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) values using various margin thresholds (30-70 % of maximum SUV with increment 10 %, twice mean SUV of blood pool, SUV 3.0, and SUV 4.0) were measured, with measurement target of the hottest lesion or a maximum of five hottest lesions. Treatment response by the PERCIST criteria was also determined. Predictive values of the PET indexes were evaluated in terms of the treatment response determined by the RECIST 1.1 criteria. RESULTS: The agreement rate was 38 % between response determined by the PERCIST and the RECIST criteria (κ = 0.381). When patients were classified into disease control group (PR, SD) and non-control group (PD) by the RECIST criteria, percent changes of TLG with various margin thresholds (particularly, 30-50 % of maximum SUV) exhibited significant differences between the two groups, and high diagnostic power for the response by the RECIST criteria. TLG-based criteria, which used a margin threshold of 50 % of maximum SUV, exhibited a high agreement with the RECIST criteria compared with the PERCIST criteria (κ = 0.606). CONCLUSION: In metastatic colorectal cancer, FDG PET/CT could be effective for treatment response evaluation by using TLG measured by margin thresholds of 30-50 % of maximum SUV. Further studies are warranted regarding the optimal cutoff values for this method.
PURPOSE: FDG PET is effective in treatment response evaluation of cancer. However, there is no standard method for quantitative evaluation of FDG PET, particularly regarding cytostatic drugs. We compared various FDG PET quantitative methods in terms of response determination. METHODS: A total of 39 refractory metastatic colorectal cancerpatients who received a multikinase inhibitor treatment were included. Baseline and posttreatment FDG PET/CT scans were performed before and two cycles after treatment. Standardized uptake value (SUV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) values using various margin thresholds (30-70 % of maximum SUV with increment 10 %, twice mean SUV of blood pool, SUV 3.0, and SUV 4.0) were measured, with measurement target of the hottest lesion or a maximum of five hottest lesions. Treatment response by the PERCIST criteria was also determined. Predictive values of the PET indexes were evaluated in terms of the treatment response determined by the RECIST 1.1 criteria. RESULTS: The agreement rate was 38 % between response determined by the PERCIST and the RECIST criteria (κ = 0.381). When patients were classified into disease control group (PR, SD) and non-control group (PD) by the RECIST criteria, percent changes of TLG with various margin thresholds (particularly, 30-50 % of maximum SUV) exhibited significant differences between the two groups, and high diagnostic power for the response by the RECIST criteria. TLG-based criteria, which used a margin threshold of 50 % of maximum SUV, exhibited a high agreement with the RECIST criteria compared with the PERCIST criteria (κ = 0.606). CONCLUSION: In metastatic colorectal cancer, FDG PET/CT could be effective for treatment response evaluation by using TLG measured by margin thresholds of 30-50 % of maximum SUV. Further studies are warranted regarding the optimal cutoff values for this method.
Authors: Kyoungjune Pak; Gi Jeong Cheon; Hyun-Yeol Nam; Seong-Jang Kim; Keon Wook Kang; June-Key Chung; E Edmund Kim; Dong Soo Lee Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hamid Chalian; Hüseyin Gürkan Töre; Jeanne M Horowitz; Riad Salem; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
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: M Findlay; H Young; D Cunningham; A Iveson; B Cronin; T Hickish; B Pratt; J Husband; M Flower; R Ott Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Jacob Farnebo; Per Grybäck; Ulrika Harmenberg; Anna Laurell; Peter Wersäll; Lennart K Blomqvist; Anders Ullén; Per Sandström Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 4.430