Eric Sorenson1, Fernando Lambreton1, Jian Q Yu2, Tianyu Li3, Crystal S Denlinger4, Joshua E Meyer5, Elin R Sigurdson1, Jeffrey M Farma6. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: Jeffrey.Farma@fccc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major challenge in identifying candidates for nonoperative management of locally advanced rectal cancer is predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) following chemoradiation. We evaluated pre- and post-CRT PET-CT imaging to predict pCR and prognosis in this set of patients undergoing resection after neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients from 2002 to 2015 with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent CRT, pre- and post-CRT PET-CT imaging, and resection. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate the association of PET-CT characteristics with pCR and survival. ROC curves were generated to define optimal cutoff points for predictive PET-CT characteristics. RESULTS: 125 patients were included. pCR rate was 28%, and follow-up was 48 mo. On multivariable analysis, patients who had a pCR had lower median post-CRT maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) (3.2 versus 5.2, P = 0.009) and higher median %SUV decrease (72 versus 58%, P = 0.009). ROC curves were generated for %SUVmax decrease (AUC = 0.70) and post-CRT SUV (AUC = 0.69). Post-CRT SUVmax <4.3 and %SUVmax decrease of >66% were equally predictive of pCR with a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 72%, PPV of 44%, and NPV of 86%. Median 5-y overall and relapse-free survival were improved for patients with post-CRT SUV <4.3 (OS: 86 versus 66%, P = 0.01; RFS: 75 versus 52%, P = 0.01) or %SUV decrease of >66% (OS, 82 versus 66%, P = 0.05; RFS, 75 versus 54%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT may be useful in identifying patients who did not achieve pCR, as well as overall survival in patients undergoing CRT for rectal cancer. Patients with a post-CRT SUV of >4.3 should be considered for operative management, as an estimated 86% of these patients will not have a pCR.
BACKGROUND: A major challenge in identifying candidates for nonoperative management of locally advanced rectal cancer is predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) following chemoradiation. We evaluated pre- and post-CRT PET-CT imaging to predict pCR and prognosis in this set of patients undergoing resection after neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients from 2002 to 2015 with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent CRT, pre- and post-CRT PET-CT imaging, and resection. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate the association of PET-CT characteristics with pCR and survival. ROC curves were generated to define optimal cutoff points for predictive PET-CT characteristics. RESULTS: 125 patients were included. pCR rate was 28%, and follow-up was 48 mo. On multivariable analysis, patients who had a pCR had lower median post-CRT maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) (3.2 versus 5.2, P = 0.009) and higher median %SUV decrease (72 versus 58%, P = 0.009). ROC curves were generated for %SUVmax decrease (AUC = 0.70) and post-CRT SUV (AUC = 0.69). Post-CRT SUVmax <4.3 and %SUVmax decrease of >66% were equally predictive of pCR with a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 72%, PPV of 44%, and NPV of 86%. Median 5-y overall and relapse-free survival were improved for patients with post-CRT SUV <4.3 (OS: 86 versus 66%, P = 0.01; RFS: 75 versus 52%, P = 0.01) or %SUV decrease of >66% (OS, 82 versus 66%, P = 0.05; RFS, 75 versus 54%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT may be useful in identifying patients who did not achieve pCR, as well as overall survival in patients undergoing CRT for rectal cancer. Patients with a post-CRT SUV of >4.3 should be considered for operative management, as an estimated 86% of these patients will not have a pCR.
Authors: R O Perez; A Habr-Gama; G P São Julião; P B Lynn; C Sabbagh; I Proscurshim; F G Campos; J Gama-Rodrigues; S C Nahas; C A Buchpiguel Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Sameer Memon; A Craig Lynch; Timothy Akhurst; Samuel Y Ngan; Satish K Warrier; Michael Michael; Alexander G Heriot Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Skandan Shanmugan; Rodrigo Arrangoiz; James R Nitzkorski; Jian Q Yu; Tianyu Li; Harry Cooper; Andre Konski; Jeffrey M Farma; Elin R Sigurdson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Guido Lammering; Jeroen Buijsen; Marco H M Janssen; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Pieter Slagmolen; Maarten Lambrecht; Domenico Rubello; Marcello Gava; Alessandro Giordano; Eric O Postma; Karin Haustermans; Carlo Capirci; Vincenzo Valentini; Philippe Lambin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Pierre Lovinfosse; Marc Polus; Daniel Van Daele; Philippe Martinive; Frédéric Daenen; Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Benjamin Koopmansch; Frédéric Lambert; Carla Coimbra; Laurence Seidel; Adelin Albert; Philippe Delvenne; Roland Hustinx Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Felipe A Calvo; Marta Domper; Raúl Matute; Raúl Martínez-Lázaro; José A Arranz; Manuel Desco; Emilio Alvarez; José Luis Carreras Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Angelita Habr-Gama; Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues; Guilherme P São Julião; Igor Proscurshim; Charles Sabbagh; Patricio B Lynn; Rodrigo O Perez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Crimì; R Stramare; G Spolverato; V Aldegheri; A Barison; L D'Alimonte; Q R Bao; A Spimpolo; L Albertoni; D Cecchin; C Campi; E Quaia; S Pucciarelli; P Zucchetta Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Leila T Tchelebi; Paul B Romesser; Sebastian Feuerlein; Sarah Hoffe; Kujtim Latifi; Seth Felder; Michael D Chuong Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2020 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302