Hyoungwoo Kim1, Ie Ryung Yoo1, Sun Ha Boo1, Hye Lim Park1, Joo Hyun O1, Sung Hoon Kim1. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591 Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic value of PET parameters obtained from pre- and post-treatment FDG PET/CT examinations in patients with SCLC. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with initially diagnosed SCLC from 2009 to 2014 were included and had chemotherapy and/or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. FDG PET/CT examinations were performed before (PET1) and after (PET2) treatment to evaluate treatment response. A region of interest was placed over the primary lesion and metastatic lymph nodes within the thoracic cavity. PET parameters including change from PET1 to PET2 (Δ in %) were acquired: SUVmax, SUVpeak, MTV2.5, TLG, ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVpeak, ΔMTV and ΔTLG. Patient characteristics including staging, age, sex, LDH and response evaluation by RECIST were surveyed. Statistical analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis with respect to OS and PFS. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 9.6 months (2.5-80.5 months). 27 patients were LD and 32 were ED. Forty-six patients (78.0%) had died, and median OS was 8.6 months; 51 patients (86%) showed disease progression, and median PFS was 2.5 months. On univariate analysis, patients with ED, high interval change (ΔSUVmax and ΔSUVpeak) and low PET2 parameters showed longer OS and PFS. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that ΔSUVpeak (HR 2.6, P = 0.002) was an independent prognostic factors for OS, and MTV2.5 of PET2 (HR 2.8, P = 0.001), disease stage (HR 2.7, P = 0.003) and RECIST (HR 2.0, P = 0.023) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic and volumetric PET parameters obtained from pre- and post-treatment FDG PET/CT examinations in patients with SCLC have significant prognostic information.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic value of PET parameters obtained from pre- and post-treatment FDG PET/CT examinations in patients with SCLC. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with initially diagnosed SCLC from 2009 to 2014 were included and had chemotherapy and/or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. FDG PET/CT examinations were performed before (PET1) and after (PET2) treatment to evaluate treatment response. A region of interest was placed over the primary lesion and metastatic lymph nodes within the thoracic cavity. PET parameters including change from PET1 to PET2 (Δ in %) were acquired: SUVmax, SUVpeak, MTV2.5, TLG, ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVpeak, ΔMTV and ΔTLG. Patient characteristics including staging, age, sex, LDH and response evaluation by RECIST were surveyed. Statistical analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis with respect to OS and PFS. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 9.6 months (2.5-80.5 months). 27 patients were LD and 32 were ED. Forty-six patients (78.0%) had died, and median OS was 8.6 months; 51 patients (86%) showed disease progression, and median PFS was 2.5 months. On univariate analysis, patients with ED, high interval change (ΔSUVmax and ΔSUVpeak) and low PET2 parameters showed longer OS and PFS. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that ΔSUVpeak (HR 2.6, P = 0.002) was an independent prognostic factors for OS, and MTV2.5 of PET2 (HR 2.8, P = 0.001), disease stage (HR 2.7, P = 0.003) and RECIST (HR 2.0, P = 0.023) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic and volumetric PET parameters obtained from pre- and post-treatment FDG PET/CT examinations in patients with SCLC have significant prognostic information.
Authors: Shengri Liao; Bill C Penney; Kristen Wroblewski; Hao Zhang; Cassie A Simon; Rony Kampalath; Ming-Chi Shih; Naoko Shimada; Sheng Chen; Ravi Salgia; Daniel E Appelbaum; Kenji Suzuki; Chin-Tu Chen; Yonglin Pu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: N Yilmaz Demirci; Ü Yilmaz; I Biner Uslu; A Dikmen; A Yılmaz; Y Erdoğan Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Charles M Rudin; Nofisat Ismaila; Christine L Hann; Narinder Malhotra; Benjamin Movsas; Kim Norris; M Catherine Pietanza; Suresh S Ramalingam; Andrew T Turrisi; Giuseppe Giaccone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aaron T Wild; Joseph M Herman; Avani S Dholakia; Shalini Moningi; Yao Lu; Lauren M Rosati; Amy Hacker-Prietz; Ryan K Assadi; Ali M Saeed; Timothy M Pawlik; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Daniel A Laheru; Phuoc T Tran; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Eric Ford; Stuart A Grossman; Xiaobu Ye; Susannah G Ellsworth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Prakash Manoharan; Ahmed Salem; Hitesh Mistry; Michael Gornall; Susan Harden; Peter Julyan; Imogen Locke; Jonathan McAleese; Rhona McMenemin; Nazia Mohammed; Michael Snee; Sarah Woods; Thomas Westwood; Corinne Faivre-Finn Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: M Unterrainer; C Eze; H Ilhan; S Marschner; O Roengvoraphoj; N S Schmidt-Hegemann; F Walter; W G Kunz; P Munck Af Rosenschöld; R Jeraj; N L Albert; A L Grosu; M Niyazi; P Bartenstein; C Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Khanyisile N Hlongwa; Kgomotso M G Mokoala; Zvifadzo Matsena-Zingoni; Mariza Vorster; Mike M Sathekge Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-25