Penny Fang1, Benjamin C Musall2, Jong Bum Son2, Amy C Moreno1, Brian P Hobbs3, Brett W Carter3, Bryan M Fellman4, Osama Mawlawi2, Jingfei Ma2, Steven H Lin5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: shlin@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the value of early changes in quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for discriminating complete pathologic response (pCR) to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiation followed by surgery were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET/CT scans at baseline, interim (2 weeks after chemoradiation start), and first follow-up. On the basis of pathologic findings at surgery, patients were categorized into tumor regression groups (TRG1, TRG2, and TRG3+). Distributions of summary statistics in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and FDG-PET at baseline and relative changes at interim and follow-up scans were compared between pCR/TRG1 and non-pCR/TRG2+ groups and across readers. Receiver operating characteristics were evaluated for summary measures to characterize discrimination of pCR from non-pCR. RESULTS: Relative changes in tumor volume ADC (ΔADC) mean and 25th and 10th percentiles from baseline to interim were able to completely discriminate (area under the curve = 1, P < .0011) between pCR and non-pCR (thresholds = 27.7%, 29.2%, and 32.1%, respectively) and were found to have high interreader reliability (95% limits of agreement of 1.001, 0.944, and 0.940, respectively). Relative change in total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from baseline to interim was significantly different among pCR and non-pCR groups (P=.0117) and yielded an area under the curve of 0.947 (95% confidence interval 0.8505-1.043). An optimal threshold of 59% decrease in TLG provided optimal sensitivity (specificity) of 1.000 (0.867). Changes in ADC summary measures were negatively correlated with that of TLG (Spearman, -0.495, P=.027). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative volume ΔADC and TLG during treatment may serve as early imaging biomarkers for discriminating pathologic response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Validation of these data in larger, prospective, multicenter studies is essential.
PURPOSE: To examine the value of early changes in quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for discriminating complete pathologic response (pCR) to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty esophageal cancerpatients treated with chemoradiation followed by surgery were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET/CT scans at baseline, interim (2 weeks after chemoradiation start), and first follow-up. On the basis of pathologic findings at surgery, patients were categorized into tumor regression groups (TRG1, TRG2, and TRG3+). Distributions of summary statistics in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and FDG-PET at baseline and relative changes at interim and follow-up scans were compared between pCR/TRG1 and non-pCR/TRG2+ groups and across readers. Receiver operating characteristics were evaluated for summary measures to characterize discrimination of pCR from non-pCR. RESULTS: Relative changes in tumor volume ADC (ΔADC) mean and 25th and 10th percentiles from baseline to interim were able to completely discriminate (area under the curve = 1, P < .0011) between pCR and non-pCR (thresholds = 27.7%, 29.2%, and 32.1%, respectively) and were found to have high interreader reliability (95% limits of agreement of 1.001, 0.944, and 0.940, respectively). Relative change in total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from baseline to interim was significantly different among pCR and non-pCR groups (P=.0117) and yielded an area under the curve of 0.947 (95% confidence interval 0.8505-1.043). An optimal threshold of 59% decrease in TLG provided optimal sensitivity (specificity) of 1.000 (0.867). Changes in ADC summary measures were negatively correlated with that of TLG (Spearman, -0.495, P=.027). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative volume ΔADC and TLG during treatment may serve as early imaging biomarkers for discriminating pathologic response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Validation of these data in larger, prospective, multicenter studies is essential.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K M Gauvain; R C McKinstry; P Mukherjee; A Perry; J J Neil; B A Kaufman; R J Hayashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Maarten Lambrecht; Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Sarah Roels; Freddy Penninckx; Eric Van Cutsem; Claus Filip; Karin Haustermans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A M Mandard; F Dalibard; J C Mandard; J Marnay; M Henry-Amar; J F Petiot; A Roussel; J H Jacob; P Segol; G Samama Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul M Schneider; Ralf Metzger; Hartmut Schaefer; Frank Baumgarten; Daniel Vallbohmer; Jan Brabender; Eva Wolfgarten; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Hans P Dienes; Arnulf H Hoelscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ingmar L Defize; Richard van Hillegersberg; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Steven H Lin; Jelle P Ruurda; Peter S N van Rossum Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-12
Authors: Abeer H Abdelhafez; Benjamin C Musall; Wei T Yang; Gaiane M Rauch; Beatriz E Adrada; KennethR Hess; Jong Bum Son; Ken-Pin Hwang; Rosalind P Candelaria; Lumarie Santiago; Gary J Whitman; Huong T Le-Petross; Tanya W Moseley; Elsa Arribas; Deanna L Lane; Marion E Scoggins; Jessica W T Leung; Hagar S Mahmoud; Jason B White; Elizabeth E Ravenberg; Jennifer K Litton; Vicente Valero; Peng Wei; Alastair M Thompson; Stacy L Moulder; Mark D Pagel; Jingfei Ma Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Sophie E Heethuis; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jan J W Lagendijk; Marnix G E H Lam; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Stella Mook; Jelle P Ruurda; Marco van Vulpen; Francine E M Voncken; Berthe M P Aleman; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten; Jingfei Ma; Penny Fang; Benjamin C Musall; Steven H Lin; Gert J Meijer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria J Valkema; Berend J van der Wilk; Ben M Eyck; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Manon C W Spaander; Michail Doukas; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Wendy M J Schreurs; Mark J Roef; J Jan B van Lanschot; Roelf Valkema Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: S E Vollenbrock; F E M Voncken; J M van Dieren; D M J Lambregts; M Maas; G J Meijer; L Goense; S Mook; K J Hartemink; P Snaebjornsson; L C Ter Beek; M Verheij; B M P Aleman; R G H Beets-Tan; A Bartels-Rutten Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: A S Borggreve; S Mook; M Verheij; V E M Mul; J J Bergman; A Bartels-Rutten; L C Ter Beek; R G H Beets-Tan; R J Bennink; M I van Berge Henegouwen; L A A Brosens; I L Defize; J M van Dieren; H Dijkstra; R van Hillegersberg; M C Hulshof; H W M van Laarhoven; M G E H Lam; A L H M W van Lier; C T Muijs; W B Nagengast; A J Nederveen; W Noordzij; J T M Plukker; P S N van Rossum; J P Ruurda; J W van Sandick; B L A M Weusten; F E M Voncken; D Yakar; G J Meijer Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Sophie E Heethuis; Mick R Boekhoff; Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Lodewijk A A Brosens; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jan J W Lagendijk; Stella Mook; Jelle P Ruurda; Gert J Meijer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 5.315