| Literature DB >> 30962693 |
Ying Lv1, Xin Wang2,3, Lerong Liang4, Lei Wang5, Jie Lu6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to explore the association between KRAS mutation status and PET/CT metabolic parameters in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET/CT; KRAS mutation; MTV; SUVmax; SUVmean; colorectal cancer
Year: 2019 PMID: 30962693 PMCID: PMC6433102 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S196725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Patient clinical characteristics
| Characteristics | Number (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Patients, n | 164 |
| Age, years | |
| Median (range) | 56 (29–86) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 99 (60.4) |
| Female | 65 (39.6) |
| Differentiation | |
| Poor | 24 (14.6) |
| Moderate | 125 (76.2) |
| Well | 15 (9.2) |
| Histologic type | |
| Nonmucinous adenocarcinoma | 140 (85.4) |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 19 (11.6) |
| Signet-ring cell carcinoma | 5 (3.0) |
| Invasive depth | |
| Superficial muscle | 5 (3.0) |
| Deep muscle | 10 (6.1) |
| Full thickness | 149 (90.9) |
| RLD metastasis | |
| Positive | 107 (65.2) |
| Negative | 57 (34.8) |
| Lymphovascular invasion | |
| Positive | 88 (53.7) |
| Negative | 76 (46.3) |
| Distant metastasis | |
| Positive | 45 (27.4) |
| Negative | 119 (72.6) |
| Stage, AJCC | |
| I/II | 47 (28.7) |
| III/IV | 117 (71.3) |
| KRAS mutation status | |
| Mutation type | 72 (43.9) |
| Wild-type | 92 (56.1) |
| SUVmax (mean±SD) | 12.1±6.9 |
| SUVmean (mean±SD) | 7.4±4.1 |
| MTV (mean±SD) | 22.7±17.0 |
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; MTV, metabolic tumor volume; RLD, regional lymph node; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value.
Patient clinical characteristics according to KRAS mutation status
| Variables | Cases (N=164) | KRAS + (%) | KRAS − (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Age, years | 0.580 | |||
| >56 | 78 | 36 (46.1) | 42 (53.9) | |
| ≤56 | 86 | 36 (41.9) | 50 (58.1) | |
| Gender | 0.417 | |||
| Male | 99 | 52 (46.0) | 61 (54.0) | |
| Female | 65 | 20 (39.2) | 31 (60.8) | |
| Differentiation | 0.055 | |||
| Poor | 24 | 10 (41.7) | 14 (58.3) | |
| Moderate | 125 | 51 (40.8) | 74 (59.2) | |
| Well | 15 | 11 (73.3) | 4 (26.7) | |
| Histologic type | 0.534 | |||
| Nonmucinous adenocarcinoma | 140 | 63 (45.0) | 77 (55.0) | |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 19 | 8 (42.1) | 11 (57.9) | |
| Signet-ring cell carcinoma | 5 | 1 (20.0) | 4 (80.0) | |
| Invasive depth | 0.508 | |||
| Superficial muscle | 5 | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| Deep muscle | 10 | 4 (40.0) | 6 (60.0) | |
| Full thickness | 149 | 83 (55.7) | 66 (44.3) | |
| RLD metastasis | 0.504 | |||
| Positive | 107 | 49 (45.8) | 58 (54.2) | |
| Negative | 57 | 23 (40.3) | 34 (59.7) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.066 | |||
| Positive | 88 | 45 (51.1) | 43 (48.9) | |
| Negative | 76 | 28 (36.8) | 48 (63.2) | |
| Distant metastasis | 0.028 | |||
| Positive | 45 | 26 (57.8) | 19 (42.2) | |
| Negative | 119 | 46 (38.7) | 73 (61.3) | |
| Stage, AJCC | 0.206 | |||
| I/II | 47 | 17 (36.2) | 30 (63.8) | |
| III/IV | 117 | 55 (47.0) | 62 (53.0) | |
| SUVmax (mean±SD) | 164 | 13.5±7.8 | 11.0±5.9 | 0.023 |
| SUVmean (mean±SD) | 164 | 8.2±4.6 | 6.9±3.6 | 0.059 |
| MTV (mean±SD) | 164 | 30.8±21.3 | 16.3±8.4 | 0.001 |
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; MTV, metabolic tumor volume; RLD, regional lymph node; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value.
Figure 1Analysis of SUVmax and MTV according to KRAS mutation status.
Notes: (A) SUVmax was significantly higher in patients with KRAS mutation than in those with WT KRAS (P=0.023; Mann–Whitney U test). (B) MTV was significantly higher in patients with KRAS mutation than in those with WT KRAS (P=0.001; Mann–Whitney U test).
Abbreviations: MTV, metabolic tumor volume; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; WT, wild-type.
Univariate and multivariate regression analyses for predicting KRAS mutation status
| Variables | Univariate
| OR | 95% CI | Multivariate
| OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Age | 0.968 | 1.020 | 0.453–1.558 | |||
| Gender | 0.725 | 0.846 | 0.503–1.778 | |||
| Differentiation | 0.057 | 0.275 | 0.883–3.305 | |||
| Histologic type | 0.732 | 1.167 | 0.348–1.451 | |||
| Invasive depth | 0.608 | 0.560 | 0.524–2.410 | |||
| RLD metastasis | 0.148 | 0.676 | 0.651–2.396 | |||
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.066 | 1.123 | 0.917–3.206 | |||
| Distant metastasis | 0.029 | 2.172 | 1.081–4.361 | 0.240 | 1.645 | 0.718–3.769 |
| Stage | 0.208 | 1.565 | 0.780–3.143 | |||
| SUVmax | 0.026 | 1.055 | 1.006–1.106 | 0.048 | 0.758 | 0.564–0.985 |
| SUVmean | 0.049 | 1.081 | 1.000–1.169 | 0.597 | 1.120 | 0.737–1.702 |
| MTV | 0.001 | 1.097 | 1.055–1.139 | 0.001 | 1.204 | 1.119–1.296 |
Abbreviations: MTV, metabolic tumor volume; RLD, regional lymph node; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value.
Figure 2The prediction models consist of two metabolic parameters.
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; MTV, metabolic tumor volume; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value.