| Literature DB >> 28928879 |
Usama Salem1, Behrang Amini1, Hubert H Chuang2, Najat C Daw3, Wei Wei4, Tamara Miner Haygood1, John E Madewell1, Colleen M Costelloe1.
Abstract
Objective: The existing literature of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in Ewing sarcoma investigates mixed populations of patients with both soft tissue and bone primary tumors. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) obtained with 18F-FDG PET/CT before and after induction chemotherapy can be used as an indicator of survival in patients with Ewing sarcoma originating exclusively in the skeleton. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Ewing sarcoma; FDG PET/CT; Overall survival; Progression free survival.; SUV
Year: 2017 PMID: 28928879 PMCID: PMC5604439 DOI: 10.7150/jca.20077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Management of Ewing sarcoma patients at our institution (number of patients in brackets)
Figure 2Locations of the primary tumor
Clinical outcome of 28 patients with Ewing sarcoma of bone
| Variable | No. of Patients (%) |
|---|---|
| 13 (46) | |
| 15 (54) | |
| Local | 3 (11) |
| Nodal | 1 (4) |
| Local + bone | 1 (4) |
| Distant | 10 (36) |
| Alive | 15 (54) |
| Dead | 13 (46) |
| Alive with disease progression | 2 (7) |
| ES* | 12 (92) |
| Treatment related | 1 (8) |
*ES: Ewing sarcoma
Summary of SUVmax
| N | Mean | Min | Median | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUV1* | 28 | 10.74 | 2.20 | 8.95 | 63.90 |
| SUV2^ | 23 | 4.11 | 1.60 | 3.20 | 16.60 |
| SUV Change (%) = 100 x (SUV2 -SUV1)/ SUV1 | 23 | -60.33 | -80.37 | -61.98 | -9.09 |
*SUV1: Standard uptake value before induction chemotherapy; ^SUV2: Standard uptake value after induction chemotherapy
Summary of univariate Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival (OS)
| Variable* | Hazard Ratio^ | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits | P-value | Sample Size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUV1 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.09 | 0.01 | 28 |
| SUV2 | 1.21 | 1.05 | 1.41 | 0.01 | 23 |
| Change in SUVmax | 0.98 | 0.95 | 1.02 | 0.43 | 23 |
*SUV values were modeled as continuous variables
^Hazard ratio higher than 1 means worse prognosis
Figure 3SUVmax cutoff values associated with OS and PFS A: Overall Survival Probability: Patients with SUVmax >11.6 had significantly worse OS [7 events (deaths) in total number of 8 patients] compared to those with lower SUVmax [6 events (deaths) in total number of 20 patients], (HR = 5.71, 95% CI: 1.85 - 17.61, P = 0.003) B: Progression Free Survival Probability: Patients with SUVmax >11.6 had significantly worse PFS [7 events (deaths or progression) in a total number of 8 patients] compared to those with lower SUVmax [8 events (deaths or progression) in a total number of 20 patients], (HR = 3.16, 95% CI: 1.13 - 8.79, P = 0.03)
Summary of univariate Cox proportional hazard model results by endpoint. Patients with baseline SUVmax higher than 11.55 had significantly worse OS compared to those with lower SUVmax (HR = 5.71, 95% CI: 1.85 - 17.61, P = 0.003). No significant cut-off value was identified for SUV2.
| Endpoint | Factor | Comparison | Hazard Ratio | 95% LCL | 95% UCL | P-value | # Events | # Censored | # Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female vs. Male | 0.63 | 0.17 | 2.28 | 0.48 | 13 | 15 | 28 | |
| Mets | No vs. Yes | 0.45 | 0.15 | 1.35 | 0.15 | 13 | 15 | 28 | |
| SUV1 | >11.55 vs. <=11.55 | 5.71 | 1.85 | 17.61 | 0.003 | 13 | 15 | 28 | |
| SUV2 | >3.35 vs. <=3.35 | 2.90 | 0.84 | 9.94 | 0.09 | 11 | 12 | 23 | |
| SUVmax %change | >-60.45 vs. <=-60.45 | 0.49 | 0.13 | 1.85 | 0.29 | 11 | 12 | 23 | |
| Tumor necrosis | >=90% vs. <90% | 1.00 | 0.19 | 5.21 | >0.99 | 7 | 13 | 20 | |
| Age | 1 year increase | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 0.14 | 13 | 15 | 28 | |
| Location | Axial vs Extremity | 2.96 | 0.81 | 10.77 | 0.10 | 13 | 15 | 28 | |
| Gender | Female vs. Male | 0.62 | 0.20 | 1.96 | 0.42 | 15 | 13 | 28 | |
| Mets | No vs. Yes | 0.71 | 0.25 | 2.00 | 0.51 | 15 | 13 | 28 | |
| SUV1 | >11.55 vs. <=11.55 | 3.16 | 1.13 | 8.79 | 0.03 | 15 | 13 | 28 | |
| SUV2 | >3.35 vs. <=3.35 | 3.06 | 0.89 | 10.55 | 0.08 | 11 | 12 | 23 | |
| SUVmax %change | >-60.45 vs. <=-60.45 | 0.50 | 0.13 | 1.87 | 0.30 | 11 | 12 | 23 | |
| Tumor necrosis | >=90% vs. <90% | 1.39 | 0.15 | 12.43 | 0.77 | 5 | 12 | 17 | |
| Age | 1 year increase | 1.04 | 0.96 | 1.14 | 0.34 | 15 | 13 | 28 | |
| Location | Axial vs Extremity | 2.77 | 0.76 | 10.09 | 0.12 | 13 | 15 | 28 |
Summary of the published reports investigating PET and/or PETCT in ES and/or ES family if tumors (ESFT) and survival.
| Reference | Modality | Tumor site | Single or multi-institution | No. Of patients | Study aim | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hawkins | PET | Bone and soft tissue | Single | 36 | Determine the prognostic value of PET response for outcome | 1. SUV2** < 2.5 correlated with improved PFS¤ (P=0.01) |
| Hyun | PET | Bone and soft tissue | Multi | 115 | Determine the prognostic value of PET for monitoring specific therapy (monoclonal antibody to IGF-1Rα antibody) using SUV corrected for lean body mass (SUL). | 1. Progressive metabolic disease on SUV2** correlated with ↑ risk of death. |
| Raciborska | PET/CT | ES (not reported if bone only) | Multi | 50 | Determine the value of PET/CT to predict response to chemotherapy | 1. SUV1 was lower in patients with good histological response (3.8 vs 7.2), P = 0.02 |
| Hwang | PET/CT | ESε (bone and soft tissue) | Not reported | 34 | Determine the prognostic value of pre-therapeutic PET/CT. | SUV1* ≤ 5.8 correlated with longer OS§, P = 0.002 |
| Palmerini | PET/CT | ESε and OSTδ of bone | Single | 45 ESε and 32 OSTδ | Determine the prognostic | 1. Tumor necrosis ≥ 90% was 30 % in patients with high (≥ 6) SUV1 and 72 % with low (< 6) SUV1 (p = 0.0004). |
¤PFS: Progression free survival; §OS: Overall Survival; αIGF-1R: Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor; βSUL: Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass; *SUV1: Standard uptake value before induction chemotherapy; **SUV2: Standard uptake value after induction chemotherapy; ^CI: Confidence interval; εES: Ewing sarcoma; δOST: Osteosarcoma; γEFS: Event free survival