Marie Voglimacci1, Erwan Gabiache2, Amélie Lusque3, Gwenaël Ferron4, Anne Ducassou5, Denis Querleu6, Stéphanie Motton4, Elodie Chantalat4, Frédéric Courbon2, Alejandra Martinez4. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, IUCT-Oncopole, 1 avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. voglimaccistephanopoli.marie@iuct-oncopole.fr. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 3. Department of Biostatistics, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, IUCT-Oncopole, 1 avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 5. Department of Radiotherapy, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aim of the study was to assess impact of pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters on response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and survival in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients without paraaortic lymph node involvement. METHODS: LACC patients treated with CRT without macrometastatic involvement after paraaortic surgical staging were included. All patients had received at least 45 Gy radiotherapy and five cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. High-risk histologies were excluded. Two senior nuclear physician experts in gynaecologic oncology reviewed all PET/CT exams, and extracted tumor SUVmax, MTV, and TLG (standardized uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis respectively). Response to CRT was assessed with a pelvic MRI done after 45 Gy. Medical charts were reviewed for clinical, pathology, and survival data. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included in the study. The overall survival (OS) rates at 2 and 5 years were 83.0% [95%CI: 72.5-89.8] and 71.2% [57.5-81.2] respectively. The RFS rates at 2 and 5 years were 72.5% [61.5-80.9] and 64.4% [52.3-74.2] respectively. Higher cervical SUVmax and TLG were significantly associated with poor response to CRT. In multivariate analysis, cervical SUVmax was the main predictive factor for OS. CONCLUSION: Cervical tumor SUVmax was demonstrated to be a non-invasive prognostic biomarker for response to treatment and survival in LACC patients without paraaortic involvement. SUVmax and other PET/CT metabolic parameters require further prospective investigation to help tailoring of local treatment.
PURPOSE: Aim of the study was to assess impact of pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters on response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and survival in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients without paraaortic lymph node involvement. METHODS: LACC patients treated with CRT without macrometastatic involvement after paraaortic surgical staging were included. All patients had received at least 45 Gy radiotherapy and five cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. High-risk histologies were excluded. Two senior nuclear physician experts in gynaecologic oncology reviewed all PET/CT exams, and extracted tumor SUVmax, MTV, and TLG (standardized uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis respectively). Response to CRT was assessed with a pelvic MRI done after 45 Gy. Medical charts were reviewed for clinical, pathology, and survival data. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included in the study. The overall survival (OS) rates at 2 and 5 years were 83.0% [95%CI: 72.5-89.8] and 71.2% [57.5-81.2] respectively. The RFS rates at 2 and 5 years were 72.5% [61.5-80.9] and 64.4% [52.3-74.2] respectively. Higher cervical SUVmax and TLG were significantly associated with poor response to CRT. In multivariate analysis, cervical SUVmax was the main predictive factor for OS. CONCLUSION: Cervical tumor SUVmax was demonstrated to be a non-invasive prognostic biomarker for response to treatment and survival in LACC patients without paraaortic involvement. SUVmax and other PET/CT metabolic parameters require further prospective investigation to help tailoring of local treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervix cancer; Chemoradiotherapy; FDG-PET/CT; Prognosis; SUV
Authors: M A Quinn; J L Benedet; F Odicino; P Maisonneuve; U Beller; W T Creasman; A P M Heintz; H Y S Ngan; S Pecorelli Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Annette Hasenburg; Joseph K Salama; T John Van; Chad Amosson; J Kam Chiu; Dirk G Kieback Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Feiyu Xue; Lilie L Lin; Farrokh Dehdashti; Tom R Miller; Barry A Siegel; Perry W Grigsby Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Eva Henriksson; Elisabeth Kjellen; Peter Wahlberg; Tomas Ohlsson; Johan Wennerberg; Eva Brun Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: A Martinez; M Voglimacci; A Lusque; A Ducassou; L Gladieff; N Dupuis; M A Angeles; C Martinez; Y Tanguy Le Gac; E Chantalat; A Hitzel; F Courbon; G Ferron; E Gabiache Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marta Ferreira; Pierre Lovinfosse; Johanne Hermesse; Marjolein Decuypere; Caroline Rousseau; François Lucia; Ulrike Schick; Caroline Reinhold; Philippe Robin; Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Claire Bernard; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Frédéric Kridelka; Philippe Lambin; Patrick E Meyer; Roland Hustinx Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 9.236