Frank Hofheinz1, Yimin Li2, Ingo G Steffen3, Qin Lin2, Chen Lili2, Wu Hua4, Jörg van den Hoff5, Sebastian Zschaeck6,7. 1. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PET Center, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Bautzner Landstrasse 400, 01328, Dresden, Germany. f.hofheinz@hzdr.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiamen Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. 3. Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xiamen Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. 5. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PET Center, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Bautzner Landstrasse 400, 01328, Dresden, Germany. 6. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin, Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany. 7. Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Anna-Louisa-Karsch 2, 10178, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognosis for patients with inoperable esophageal carcinoma is still poor and the reliability of individual therapy outcome prediction based on clinical parameters is not convincing. In a recent publication, we were able to show that PET can provide independent prognostic information in such a patient group and that the tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) can improve the prognostic value of tracer uptake values. The present investigation addresses the question of whether the distinctly improved prognostic value of SUR can be confirmed in a similar patient group that was examined and treated at a different site. METHODS: 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 147 consecutive patients (115 male, 32 female, mean age: 62 years) with newly diagnosed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma prior to definitive radiochemotherapy. In the PET images, the metabolic active volume (MTV) of the primary tumor was delineated with an adaptive threshold method. For the resulting ROIs, SUVmax and total lesion glycolysis (TLG = MTV × SUVmean) were computed. The blood SUV was determined by manually delineating the aorta in the low-dose CT. SUR values were computed as ratio of tumor SUV and blood SUV. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to overall survival (OS), distant-metastases-free survival (DM), and locoregional control (LRC) was performed. Additionally, a multivariate Cox regression including clinically relevant parameters was performed. RESULTS: Univariate Cox regression revealed MTV, TLG, and SURmax as significant prognostic factors for OS. MTV as well as TLG were significant prognostic factors for LRC while SURmax showed only a trend for significance. None of the PET parameters was prognostic for DM. In univariate analysis, SUVmax was not prognostic for any of the investigated clinical endpoints. In multivariate analysis (T-stage, N-stage, MTV, and SURmax), MTV was an independent prognostic factor for OS and showed a trend for significance for LRC. SURmax was not an independent predictor for OS or LRC. When including the PET parameters separately in multivariate analysis, MTV as well as SURmax were prognostic factors for OS indicating that SURmax is independent from the clinical parameters but not from MTV. In addition, MTV was an independent prognostic factor for LRC in this separate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a clearly improved prognostic value of tumor SUR compared to tumor SUV and confirms our previously published findings regarding OS. Furthermore, SUR delivers prognostic information beyond that provided by the clinical parameters alone, but does not add prognostic information beyond that provided by MTV in this patient group. Therefore, our results suggest that pretherapeutic MTV is the parameter of choice for PET-based risk stratification in the considered setting but further investigations are necessary to demonstrate that this suggestion is correct.
PURPOSE: The prognosis for patients with inoperable esophageal carcinoma is still poor and the reliability of individual therapy outcome prediction based on clinical parameters is not convincing. In a recent publication, we were able to show that PET can provide independent prognostic information in such a patient group and that the tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) can improve the prognostic value of tracer uptake values. The present investigation addresses the question of whether the distinctly improved prognostic value of SUR can be confirmed in a similar patient group that was examined and treated at a different site. METHODS: 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 147 consecutive patients (115 male, 32 female, mean age: 62 years) with newly diagnosed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma prior to definitive radiochemotherapy. In the PET images, the metabolic active volume (MTV) of the primary tumor was delineated with an adaptive threshold method. For the resulting ROIs, SUVmax and total lesion glycolysis (TLG = MTV × SUVmean) were computed. The blood SUV was determined by manually delineating the aorta in the low-dose CT. SUR values were computed as ratio of tumor SUV and blood SUV. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to overall survival (OS), distant-metastases-free survival (DM), and locoregional control (LRC) was performed. Additionally, a multivariate Cox regression including clinically relevant parameters was performed. RESULTS: Univariate Cox regression revealed MTV, TLG, and SURmax as significant prognostic factors for OS. MTV as well as TLG were significant prognostic factors for LRC while SURmax showed only a trend for significance. None of the PET parameters was prognostic for DM. In univariate analysis, SUVmax was not prognostic for any of the investigated clinical endpoints. In multivariate analysis (T-stage, N-stage, MTV, and SURmax), MTV was an independent prognostic factor for OS and showed a trend for significance for LRC. SURmax was not an independent predictor for OS or LRC. When including the PET parameters separately in multivariate analysis, MTV as well as SURmax were prognostic factors for OS indicating that SURmax is independent from the clinical parameters but not from MTV. In addition, MTV was an independent prognostic factor for LRC in this separate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a clearly improved prognostic value of tumor SUR compared to tumor SUV and confirms our previously published findings regarding OS. Furthermore, SUR delivers prognostic information beyond that provided by the clinical parameters alone, but does not add prognostic information beyond that provided by MTV in this patient group. Therefore, our results suggest that pretherapeutic MTV is the parameter of choice for PET-based risk stratification in the considered setting but further investigations are necessary to demonstrate that this suggestion is correct.
Entities:
Keywords:
Definitive radiochemotherapy; Esophageal cancer; PET; SUR; SUV
Authors: Vinod Malik; Julie A Lucey; George J Duffy; Lorraine Wilson; Leanne McNamara; Mary Keogan; Charles Gillham; John V Reynolds Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Herskovic; K Martz; M al-Sarraf; L Leichman; J Brindle; V Vaitkevicius; J Cooper; R Byhardt; L Davis; B Emami Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Akihiro Suzuki; Lianchun Xiao; Yuki Hayashi; Homer A Macapinlac; James Welsh; Steven H Lin; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Dipen M Maru; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J S Cooper; M D Guo; A Herskovic; J S Macdonald; J A Martenson; M Al-Sarraf; R Byhardt; A H Russell; J J Beitler; S Spencer; S O Asbell; M V Graham; L L Leichman Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-05-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: F Hofheinz; C Pötzsch; L Oehme; B Beuthien-Baumann; J Steinbach; J Kotzerke; J van den Hoff Journal: Nuklearmedizin Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 1.379
Authors: Bruce D Minsky; Thomas F Pajak; Robert J Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; David P Kelsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa Marr; Bernhard Haller; Thomas Pyka; Jan C Peeken; Moritz Jesinghaus; Klemens Scheidhauer; Helmut Friess; Stephanie E Combs; Stefan Münch Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 4.379
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: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Yimin Li; Qin Lin; Marcus Beck; Holger Amthauer; Laura Bauersachs; Marina Hajiyianni; Julian Rogasch; Vincent H Ehrhardt; Goda Kalinauskaite; Julian Weingärtner; Vivian Hartmann; Jörg van den Hoff; Volker Budach; Carmen Stromberger; Frank Hofheinz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.240
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