Rebecca Bütof1, Frank Hofheinz2, Klaus Zöphel3, Julia Schmollack3, Christina Jentsch4, Sebastian Zschaeck4, Jörg Kotzerke3, Jörg van den Hoff2, Michael Baumann4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PET Center, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Germany.
Abstract
The prognosis of patients with esophageal carcinoma remains dismal despite ongoing efforts to improve treatment options. For locally advanced tumors, several randomized trials have shown the benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared to surgery alone. The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate the prognostic value of different baseline positron emission tomography (PET) parameters and their potentially additional prognostic impact at the end of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Furthermore, the standard uptake ratio (SUR) as a new parameter for quantification of tumor metabolism was compared to the conventional PET parameters metabolic active volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and standardized uptake value (SUV) taking into account known basic parameters. Methods: 18F-FDG-PET/CT was performed in 76 consecutive patients ((60±10) years, 71 males) with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer before and during the last week of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. MTV of the primary tumor was delineated with an adaptive threshold method. The blood SUV was determined by manually delineating the aorta in the low dose CT. SUR values were computed as scan time corrected ratio of tumor SUVmax and mean blood SUV. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to locoregional control (LRC), freedom from distant metastases (FFDM), and overall survival (OS) was performed. Additionally, independence of PET parameters from standard clinical factors was analyzed with multivariate Cox regression. Results: In multivariate analysis two parameters showed a significant correlation with all endpoints: restaging MTV and restaging SUR. Furthermore, restaging TLG was prognostic for LCR and FFDM. For all endpoints the largest effect size was found for restaging SUR. The only basic factors remaining significant in multivariate analyses were histology for OS and FFDM and age for LRC. Conclusion: PET provides independent prognostic information for OS, LRC, and FFDM in addition to standard clinical parameters in this patient cohort. Our results suggest that the prognostic value of tracer uptake can be improved when characterized by SUR rather than by SUV. Overall, our investigation revealed a higher prognostic value of restaging parameters compared to baseline PET; therapy-adjustments would still be possible at this point of time. Further investigations are required to confirm these hypothesis-generating results.
The prognosis of patients with esophageal carcinoma remains dismal despite ongoing efforts to improve treatment options. For locally advanced tumors, several randomized trials have shown the benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared to surgery alone. The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate the prognostic value of different baseline positron emission tomography (PET) parameters and their potentially additional prognostic impact at the end of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Furthermore, the standard uptake ratio (SUR) as a new parameter for quantification of tumor metabolism was compared to the conventional PET parameters metabolic active volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and standardized uptake value (SUV) taking into account known basic parameters. Methods: 18F-FDG-PET/CT was performed in 76 consecutive patients ((60±10) years, 71 males) with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer before and during the last week of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. MTV of the primary tumor was delineated with an adaptive threshold method. The blood SUV was determined by manually delineating the aorta in the low dose CT. SUR values were computed as scan time corrected ratio of tumor SUVmax and mean blood SUV. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to locoregional control (LRC), freedom from distant metastases (FFDM), and overall survival (OS) was performed. Additionally, independence of PET parameters from standard clinical factors was analyzed with multivariate Cox regression. Results: In multivariate analysis two parameters showed a significant correlation with all endpoints: restaging MTV and restaging SUR. Furthermore, restaging TLG was prognostic for LCR and FFDM. For all endpoints the largest effect size was found for restaging SUR. The only basic factors remaining significant in multivariate analyses were histology for OS and FFDM and age for LRC. Conclusion: PET provides independent prognostic information for OS, LRC, and FFDM in addition to standard clinical parameters in this patient cohort. Our results suggest that the prognostic value of tracer uptake can be improved when characterized by SUR rather than by SUV. Overall, our investigation revealed a higher prognostic value of restaging parameters compared to baseline PET; therapy-adjustments would still be possible at this point of time. Further investigations are required to confirm these hypothesis-generating results.
Authors: Miroslav Myslivecek; Cestmir Neoral; Radek Vrba; Katherine Vomackova; Jan Cincibuch; Radim Formanek; Pavel Koranda; Jana Zapletalova Journal: Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.245
Authors: Dietmar Tamandl; Richard M Gore; Barbara Fueger; Patrick Kinsperger; Michael Hejna; Matthias Paireder; Alexander Haug; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert Eil; Brian S Diggs; Samuel J Wang; James P Dolan; John G Hunter; Charles R Thomas Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rachel L G M Blom; Inge R Steenbakkers; Guido Lammering; Roy F A Vliegen; Eric J Belgers; Charlotte de Jonge; Wendy M J Schreurs; Marius Nap; Meindert N Sosef Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jörg van den Hoff; Liane Oehme; Georg Schramm; Jens Maus; Alexandr Lougovski; Jan Petr; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Frank Hofheinz Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Frank Hofheinz; Jörg van den Hoff; Ingo G Steffen; Alexandr Lougovski; Kilian Ego; Holger Amthauer; Ivayla Apostolova Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.138
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: M Popovic; O Talarico; J van den Hoff; H Kunin; Z Zhang; D Lafontaine; S Dogan; J Leung; E Kaye; C Czmielewski; M E Mayerhoefer; P Zanzonico; R Yaeger; H Schöder; J L Humm; S B Solomon; C T Sofocleous; A S Kirov Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Julian Weingärtner; Elia Lombardo; Sebastian Marschner; Marina Hajiyianni; Marcus Beck; Daniel Zips; Yimin Li; Qin Lin; Holger Amthauer; Esther G C Troost; Jörg van den Hoff; Volker Budach; Jörg Kotzerke; Konstantinos Ferentinos; Efstratios Karagiannis; David Kaul; Vincent Gregoire; Adrien Holzgreve; Nathalie L Albert; Pavel Nikulin; Michael Bachmann; Klaus Kopka; Mechthild Krause; Michael Baumann; Joanna Kazmierska; Paulina Cegla; Witold Cholewinski; Iosif Strouthos; Klaus Zöphel; Ewa Majchrzak; Guillaume Landry; Claus Belka; Carmen Stromberger; Frank Hofheinz Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Styliani Mantziari; Anastasia Pomoni; John O Prior; Michael Winiker; Pierre Allemann; Nicolas Demartines; Markus Schäfer Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 1.930