Carolin Zimmermann1,2,3,4, Marius Distler5,6,7,8, Christina Jentsch6,7,8,9, Sophia Blum10, Gunnar Folprecht6,7,8,11, Klaus Zöphel12, Heike Polster5, Esther G C Troost6,7,8,9,13,14, Nasreddin Abolmaali9,10,13,15, Jürgen Weitz5,6,7,8, Michael Baumann6,7,8,16, Hans-Detlev Saeger5, Robert Grützmann17. 1. Department of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany. carolin.zimmermann@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. carolin.zimmermann@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 3. Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. carolin.zimmermann@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 4. Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany. carolin.zimmermann@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 5. Department of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany. 6. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 8. Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany. 9. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 10. Department of Radiology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 11. Medical Department I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbh, Chemnitz, Germany. 13. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. 14. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Dresden, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 15. Department of Radiology, Municipal Hospital and Academic Teaching Hospital of the Technical University Dresden, Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Germany. 16. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 17. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a 5-year survival rate of 20-25%. As approximately only 20% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are initially staged as resectable, it is necessary to evaluate new therapeutic approaches. Hence, neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy is a promising therapeutic option, especially in patients with a borderline resectable tumor. The aim of this non-randomized, monocentric, prospective, phase II clinical study was to assess the prognostic value of functional imaging techniques, i.e., [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), prior to and during neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with histologically proven resectable, borderline resectable or unresectable non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma received induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and DW-MRI including T1- and T2-weighted sequences prior to and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as well as following induction radiochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of the response as quantified by the standardized uptake value (SUV) measured with FDG-PET. Response to treatment was evaluated by FDG-PET and DW-MRI during and after the neoadjuvant course. Morphologic staging was performed using contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced MRI to decide inclusion of patients and resectability after neoadjuvant therapy. In those patients undergoing subsequent surgery, imaging findings were correlated with those of the pathologic resection specimen. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were enrolled in the study. The response rate measured by FDG-PET was 85% with a statistically significant decrease of the maximal SUV (SUVmax) during therapy (p < 0.001). Using the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), response was not detectable with DW-MRI. After neoadjuvant treatment 16 patients underwent surgery. In 12 (48%) patients tumor resection could be performed. The median overall survival of all patients was 25 months (range: 7-38 months). CONCLUSION: Based on these limited patient numbers, it was possible to show that this trial design is feasible and that the neoadjuvant therapy regime was well tolerated. FDG-PET/CT may be a reliable method to evaluate response to the combined therapy. In contrast, when evaluating the response using mean ADC, DW-MRI did not show conclusive results.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a 5-year survival rate of 20-25%. As approximately only 20% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are initially staged as resectable, it is necessary to evaluate new therapeutic approaches. Hence, neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy is a promising therapeutic option, especially in patients with a borderline resectable tumor. The aim of this non-randomized, monocentric, prospective, phase II clinical study was to assess the prognostic value of functional imaging techniques, i.e., [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), prior to and during neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. METHODS:Patients with histologically proven resectable, borderline resectable or unresectable non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma received induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and DW-MRI including T1- and T2-weighted sequences prior to and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as well as following induction radiochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of the response as quantified by the standardized uptake value (SUV) measured with FDG-PET. Response to treatment was evaluated by FDG-PET and DW-MRI during and after the neoadjuvant course. Morphologic staging was performed using contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced MRI to decide inclusion of patients and resectability after neoadjuvant therapy. In those patients undergoing subsequent surgery, imaging findings were correlated with those of the pathologic resection specimen. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were enrolled in the study. The response rate measured by FDG-PET was 85% with a statistically significant decrease of the maximal SUV (SUVmax) during therapy (p < 0.001). Using the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), response was not detectable with DW-MRI. After neoadjuvant treatment 16 patients underwent surgery. In 12 (48%) patientstumor resection could be performed. The median overall survival of all patients was 25 months (range: 7-38 months). CONCLUSION: Based on these limited patient numbers, it was possible to show that this trial design is feasible and that the neoadjuvant therapy regime was well tolerated. FDG-PET/CT may be a reliable method to evaluate response to the combined therapy. In contrast, when evaluating the response using mean ADC, DW-MRI did not show conclusive results.
Authors: Luís Curvo-Semedo; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M J Gollub; D H Gultekin; O Akin; R K Do; J L Fuqua; M Gonen; D Kuk; M Weiser; L Saltz; D Schrag; K Goodman; P Paty; J Guillem; G M Nash; L Temple; J Shia; L H Schwartz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Minsig Choi; Lance K Heilbrun; Raghu Venkatramanamoorthy; Jawana M Lawhorn-Crews; Mark M Zalupski; Anthony F Shields Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Carolin Zimmermann; Gunnar Folprecht; Daniel Zips; Christian Pilarsky; Hans Detlev Saeger; Robert Grutzmann Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Martijn A van Dam; Floris A Vuijk; Judith A Stibbe; Ruben D Houvast; Saskia A C Luelmo; Stijn Crobach; Shirin Shahbazi Feshtali; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Bert A Bonsing; Cornelis F M Sier; Peter J K Kuppen; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; Albert D Windhorst; Jacobus Burggraaf; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; J Sven D Mieog Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: R Fietkau; R Grützmann; U A Wittel; R S Croner; L Jacobasch; U P Neumann; A Reinacher-Schick; D Imhoff; S Boeck; L Keilholz; H Oettle; W M Hohenberger; H Golcher; W O Bechstein; W Uhl; A Pirkl; W Adler; S Semrau; S Rutzner; M Ghadimi; D Lubgan Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jakob Liermann; Edgar Ben-Josef; Mustafa Syed; Juergen Debus; Klaus Herfarth; Patrick Naumann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 3.621