Jonathan M Hernandez1, Volkan Beylergil2, Debra A Goldman3, Elke van Beek1, Mithat Gonen3, Laura Tang4, Robert Downey5, Nabil Rizk5, Manish Shah6, Vivian Strong1, Yelena Janjigian6, Heiko Schöder2, Daniel G Coit1. 1. Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 5. Thoracic Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 6. Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in positron emission tomography (PET) avidity correlated with histologic response and were independently associated with outcome. BACKGROUND: The implications of metabolic response to neoadjuvant therapy as measured by repeat PET imaging remain ill-defined for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. METHODS: We identified patients with gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma who were evaluated with PET imaging before and following neoadjuvant treatment, and subsequently underwent curative resections. Spearman rank correlation and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate standardized uptake value (SUV) and histologic response, pathologic parameters, and disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: From 2002 to 2013, 192 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median SUVmax response was 57.3% (range: -110% to 100%) for patients with GEJ cancers, with a corresponding median pathologic treatment response of 80% (range: 0% to 100%). The median SUVmax response was 32.5% (-230% to 100%) for patients with gastric cancers, with a corresponding median pathologic treatment response of 35% (range: 0% to 100%). The Spearman correlation between SUVmax response and histologic response was significant for patients with GEJ (rho = 0.19, P = 0.04) and gastric (rho = 0.44, P < 0.0001) cancers. For patients with GEJ (P <0.0001 to 0.046) and gastric cancers (P = 0.0003 to 0.016), histopathologic response and tumor staging predicted DSS. SUVmax response failed to demonstrate a relationship with DSS when entered into multivariable models containing conventional pathologic variables. CONCLUSION: Following completion of neoadjuvant therapy for gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma, histopathologic staging remains the best predictor of outcome. Repeat post-treatment/preoperative PET imaging for the purpose of prognostication is of limited value.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in positron emission tomography (PET) avidity correlated with histologic response and were independently associated with outcome. BACKGROUND: The implications of metabolic response to neoadjuvant therapy as measured by repeat PET imaging remain ill-defined for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. METHODS: We identified patients with gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma who were evaluated with PET imaging before and following neoadjuvant treatment, and subsequently underwent curative resections. Spearman rank correlation and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate standardized uptake value (SUV) and histologic response, pathologic parameters, and disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: From 2002 to 2013, 192 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median SUVmax response was 57.3% (range: -110% to 100%) for patients with GEJ cancers, with a corresponding median pathologic treatment response of 80% (range: 0% to 100%). The median SUVmax response was 32.5% (-230% to 100%) for patients with gastric cancers, with a corresponding median pathologic treatment response of 35% (range: 0% to 100%). The Spearman correlation between SUVmax response and histologic response was significant for patients with GEJ (rho = 0.19, P = 0.04) and gastric (rho = 0.44, P < 0.0001) cancers. For patients with GEJ (P <0.0001 to 0.046) and gastric cancers (P = 0.0003 to 0.016), histopathologic response and tumor staging predicted DSS. SUVmax response failed to demonstrate a relationship with DSS when entered into multivariable models containing conventional pathologic variables. CONCLUSION: Following completion of neoadjuvant therapy for gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma, histopathologic staging remains the best predictor of outcome. Repeat post-treatment/preoperative PET imaging for the purpose of prognostication is of limited value.
Authors: Bernd Klaeser; Egbert Nitzsche; Jan C Schuller; Dieter Köberle; Lucas Widmer; Sabine Balmer-Majno; Thomas Hany; Corinne Cescato-Wenger; Peter Brauchli; Michael Zünd; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Clemens Caspar; Susanne Albrecht; Roger von Moos; Thomas Ruhstaller Journal: Onkologie Date: 2009-11-09
Authors: Daniel Vallböhmer; Arnulf H Hölscher; Markus Dietlein; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Stefan P Mönig; Ralf Metzger; Harald Schicha; Matthias Schmidt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Heta Javeri; Lianchun Xiao; Eric Rohren; Jeffrey H Lee; Zhongxing Liao; Wayne Hofstetter; Dipen Maru; Manoop S Bhutani; Stephen G Swisher; Homer Macapinlac; Xuemei Wang; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert J Downey; Tim Akhurst; David Ilson; Robert Ginsberg; Manjit S Bains; Mithat Gonen; Heng Koong; Marc Gollub; Bruce D Minsky; Maureen Zakowski; Alan Turnbull; Steven M Larson; Valerie Rusch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hong-Qi Peng; Kevin Halsey; Chen-Chih J Sun; Varsha Manucha; Summer Nugent; William H Rodgers; Mohan Suntharalingam; Bruce D Greenwald Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-12-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew R Davies; James A Gossage; Janine Zylstra; Fredrik Mattsson; Jesper Lagergren; Nick Maisey; Elizabeth C Smyth; David Cunningham; William H Allum; Robert C Mason Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C M Gillham; J A Lucey; M Keogan; G J Duffy; V Malik; A A Raouf; K O'byrne; D Hollywood; C Muldoon; J V Reynolds Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 7.640