Min Yang1,2, Zhong Lin3, Zeqing Xu4, Dan Li1,2, Weize Lv3, Shuai Yang3, Ye Liu5, Ying Cao6, Qingdong Cao7, Hongjun Jin8,9. 1. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biomedical Imaging and Guangdong Provincial Engineering Research Center of Molecular Imaging, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. 2. Center of Molecular Imaging, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. 3. Center of Oncology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. 5. Department of Pathology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. 6. The First Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. 15013813866@163.com. 8. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biomedical Imaging and Guangdong Provincial Engineering Research Center of Molecular Imaging, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. jinhj3@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 9. Center of Molecular Imaging, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, Guangdong Province, China. jinhj3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Primary tumor (PT) and metastatic lymph node (MLN) status have a great influence on diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Our main purpose was to investigate the imaging characteristics of PT or MLN by applying the 18F-FDG PET dynamic modeling approach for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Dynamic 18F-FDG PET scans were performed for 76 lung cancer patients, and 62 NSCLC cases were finally included in this study: 37 with newly diagnosed early and locally advanced lung cancer without distant metastases (group M0) and 25 metastatic lung cancer (group M1). Patlak graphic analysis (Ki calculation) based on the dynamic modeling and SUV analysis from conventional static data were performed. RESULTS: For PT, both KiPT (0.050 ± 0.005 vs 0.026 ± 0.004 min-1, p < 0.001) and SUVPT (8.41 ± 0.64 vs 5.23 ± 0.73, p < 0.01) showed significant higher values in group M1 than M0. For MLN, KiMLN showed significant higher values in M1 than M0 (0.033 ± 0.005 vs 0.016 ± 0.003 min-1, p < 0.01), while no significant differences were found for SUVMLN between M0 and M1 (4.22 ± 0.49 vs 5.57 ± 0.59, p > 0.05). Both SUV PT and KiPT showed significant high values in squamous cell carcinoma than adenocarcinoma, but neither SUVPT nor KiPT showed significant differences between EGFR mutants versus wild types. The overall Spearman analysis for SUV and Ki from different groups showed variable correlation (r = 0.46-0.94). CONCLUSION: The dynamic modeling for MLN (KiMLN) showed more sensitive than the static analysis (SUV) to detect metastatic lymph nodes in NSCLC, although both methods were sensitive for PT. This methodology of non-invasive imaging may become an important tool to evaluate MLN and PT status for patients who cannot undergo histological examination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration number is NCT03679936 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/).
PURPOSE: Primary tumor (PT) and metastatic lymph node (MLN) status have a great influence on diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Our main purpose was to investigate the imaging characteristics of PT or MLN by applying the 18F-FDG PET dynamic modeling approach for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Dynamic 18F-FDG PET scans were performed for 76 lung cancer patients, and 62 NSCLC cases were finally included in this study: 37 with newly diagnosed early and locally advanced lung cancer without distant metastases (group M0) and 25 metastatic lung cancer (group M1). Patlak graphic analysis (Ki calculation) based on the dynamic modeling and SUV analysis from conventional static data were performed. RESULTS: For PT, both KiPT (0.050 ± 0.005 vs 0.026 ± 0.004 min-1, p < 0.001) and SUVPT (8.41 ± 0.64 vs 5.23 ± 0.73, p < 0.01) showed significant higher values in group M1 than M0. For MLN, KiMLN showed significant higher values in M1 than M0 (0.033 ± 0.005 vs 0.016 ± 0.003 min-1, p < 0.01), while no significant differences were found for SUVMLN between M0 and M1 (4.22 ± 0.49 vs 5.57 ± 0.59, p > 0.05). Both SUV PT and KiPT showed significant high values in squamous cell carcinoma than adenocarcinoma, but neither SUVPT nor KiPT showed significant differences between EGFR mutants versus wild types. The overall Spearman analysis for SUV and Ki from different groups showed variable correlation (r = 0.46-0.94). CONCLUSION: The dynamic modeling for MLN (KiMLN) showed more sensitive than the static analysis (SUV) to detect metastatic lymph nodes in NSCLC, although both methods were sensitive for PT. This methodology of non-invasive imaging may become an important tool to evaluate MLN and PT status for patients who cannot undergo histological examination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration number is NCT03679936 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/).
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: H Minn; S Leskinen-Kallio; P Lindholm; J Bergman; U Ruotsalainen; M Teräs; M Haaparanta Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1993 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Christophe Dooms; Robert Jan van Suylen; Erik Verbeken; Monique Hochstenbag; Cary Dehing-Oberije; Dennis Rupa; Silvia Pastorekova; Sigrid Stroobants; Ulrich Buell; Philippe Lambin; Johan Vansteenkiste; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: P Som; H L Atkins; D Bandoypadhyay; J S Fowler; R R MacGregor; K Matsui; Z H Oster; D F Sacker; C Y Shiue; H Turner; C N Wan; A P Wolf; S V Zabinski Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1980-07 Impact factor: 10.057