E E Fransen van de Putte1, E Vegt2, L S Mertens3, A Bruining4, K Hendricksen3, M S van der Heijden5, S Horenblas3, B W G van Rhijn3. 1. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.fransen@nki.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT response identification following neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy (NAIC) for invasive bladder cancer (BC) as to better select patients for radical cystectomy (RC). METHODS: Between 2010 and 2014, 37 cT1-4N1-3 BC patients received a FDG-PET/CT before and after NAIC followed by RC. Metabolic lymph node (LN) response was evaluated according to EORTC recommendations. Additionally, primary tumor response was evaluated for 23 patients by means of delayed pelvic imaging after forced diuresis. Gold standard was response on pathologic analysis of RC specimens. Response was defined as partial response (pPR, any pathologic downstaging) or complete response (pCR, <ypT1N0). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was correlated with pCR and metabolic CR. RESULTS: Twenty-four cN+ patients achieved LN pCR. FDG-PET/CT identified pCR with 67% sensitivity and 46% specificity. Primary tumor response was evaluable for 17/23 patients, of whom 12 were responders. Tumor downstaging (pPR or pCR) was identified with 83% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Tumor pCR was detected with 70% sensitivity and 71% specificity. pCR of overall disease (primary tumor and LNs, n = 17) was detected with 67% sensitivity and 75% specificity. CSS was positively associated with pathologic CR (HR 0.16, p = 0.027), but not with metabolic CR (HR 0.560, p = 0.612). CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT can accurately distinguish primary tumor downstaging from non-response, which suggests that response monitoring (in cN0 patients) might be used to adjust neoadjuvant treatment. pCR identification is less accurate, especially for LN metastases, which suggests that FDG-PET/CT cannot be used to select patients for RC.
PURPOSE: We investigated the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT response identification following neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy (NAIC) for invasive bladder cancer (BC) as to better select patients for radical cystectomy (RC). METHODS: Between 2010 and 2014, 37 cT1-4N1-3 BC patients received a FDG-PET/CT before and after NAIC followed by RC. Metabolic lymph node (LN) response was evaluated according to EORTC recommendations. Additionally, primary tumor response was evaluated for 23 patients by means of delayed pelvic imaging after forced diuresis. Gold standard was response on pathologic analysis of RC specimens. Response was defined as partial response (pPR, any pathologic downstaging) or complete response (pCR, <ypT1N0). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was correlated with pCR and metabolic CR. RESULTS: Twenty-four cN+ patients achieved LN pCR. FDG-PET/CT identified pCR with 67% sensitivity and 46% specificity. Primary tumor response was evaluable for 17/23 patients, of whom 12 were responders. Tumor downstaging (pPR or pCR) was identified with 83% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Tumor pCR was detected with 70% sensitivity and 71% specificity. pCR of overall disease (primary tumor and LNs, n = 17) was detected with 67% sensitivity and 75% specificity. CSS was positively associated with pathologic CR (HR 0.16, p = 0.027), but not with metabolic CR (HR 0.560, p = 0.612). CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/CT can accurately distinguish primary tumor downstaging from non-response, which suggests that response monitoring (in cN0 patients) might be used to adjust neoadjuvant treatment. pCR identification is less accurate, especially for LN metastases, which suggests that FDG-PET/CT cannot be used to select patients for RC.
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: R P Meijer; J A Nieuwenhuijzen; W Meinhardt; A Bex; H G van der Poel; B W van Rhijn; J M Kerst; A M Bergman; E van Werkhoven; S Horenblas Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 4.424
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: Ayman Soubra; Daniel Hayward; Philipp Dahm; Robert Goldfarb; Jerry Froehlich; Gautam Jha; Badrinath R Konety Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Eva Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Georgios Gakis; Thierry Lebret; Maria J Ribal; Antoine G Van der Heijden; Amir Sherif Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Cuccurullo; Giuseppe Danilo Di Stasio; Francesco Manti; Pierpaolo Arcuri; Rocco Damiano; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11
Authors: Antonio Gómez Caamaño; Ana M García Vicente; Pablo Maroto; Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín; Julián Sanz; María Almudena Vera González; Miguel Ángel Climent Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 3.677