Tina Binderup1,2, Ulrich Knigge2,3,4, Camilla Bardram Johnbeck1,2, Annika Loft1,2, Anne Kiil Berthelsen1,2, Peter Oturai1,2, Jann Mortensen1,2, Birgitte Federspiel2,5, Seppo W Langer2,6, Andreas Kjaer7,2. 1. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET and Cluster for Molecular Imaging, Rigshospitalet & University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. European Neuroendocrine Tumors Society Center of Excellence, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Endocrinology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; and. 6. Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET and Cluster for Molecular Imaging, Rigshospitalet & University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark akjaer@sund.ku.dk.
Abstract
Accurate grading of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is essential for risk stratification and optimal choice of therapy. Currently, grading is based on histologically assessed degree of tumor proliferation. The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET imaging for risk stratification of NENs and compare it with tumor grading (World Health Organization 2010 classification). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study evaluating the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET imaging and compared it with histologic grading. Enrolled were 166 patients of all grades and with histologically confirmed NENs of gastroenteropancreatic origin. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary endpoint. In addition, OS in relation to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) was analyzed as an exploratory endpoint. The median follow-up time was 9.8 y. Results: Analysis of the whole cohort revealed that a positive 18F-FDG PET scan was associated with a shorter OS than a negative 18F-FDG PET scan (hazard ratio: 3.8; 95% CI: 2.4-5.9; P < 0.001). In G1 and G2 patients (n = 140), a positive 18F-FDG PET scan was the only identifier of high risk for death (hazard ratio: 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, 18F-FDG PET, G3 tumor, ≥2 liver metastases, and ≥2 prior therapies were independent prognostic factors for OS, and 18F-FDG PET, G3 tumor, and ≥3 liver metastases were independent prognostic factors for PFS. For patients receiving PRRT, 18F-FDG-negative cases had a significantly longer survival than 18F-FDG-positive cases, whereas no difference was identified for tumor grading. 18F-FDG-positive patients receiving PRRT had a significantly longer median survival than patients not receiving PRRT (4.4 vs. 1.4 y, P = 0.001), whereas no difference was seen for 18F-FDG-negative patients. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET is useful for risk stratification of all NEN grades and is superior to histologic grading. 18F-FDG PET could differentiate G1 and G2 tumors into low- and high-risk groups. In the selection of therapy and for risk stratification of NEN patients, 18F-FDG PET status should be considered.
Accurate grading of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is essential for risk stratification and optimal choice of therapy. Currently, grading is based on histologically assessed degree of tumor proliferation. The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET imaging for risk stratification of NENs and compare it with tumor grading (World Health Organization 2010 classification). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study evaluating the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET imaging and compared it with histologic grading. Enrolled were 166 patients of all grades and with histologically confirmed NENs of gastroenteropancreatic origin. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary endpoint. In addition, OS in relation to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) was analyzed as an exploratory endpoint. The median follow-up time was 9.8 y. Results: Analysis of the whole cohort revealed that a positive 18F-FDG PET scan was associated with a shorter OS than a negative 18F-FDG PET scan (hazard ratio: 3.8; 95% CI: 2.4-5.9; P < 0.001). In G1 and G2 patients (n = 140), a positive 18F-FDG PET scan was the only identifier of high risk for death (hazard ratio: 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, 18F-FDG PET, G3 tumor, ≥2 liver metastases, and ≥2 prior therapies were independent prognostic factors for OS, and 18F-FDG PET, G3 tumor, and ≥3 liver metastases were independent prognostic factors for PFS. For patients receiving PRRT, 18F-FDG-negative cases had a significantly longer survival than 18F-FDG-positive cases, whereas no difference was identified for tumor grading. 18F-FDG-positive patients receiving PRRT had a significantly longer median survival than patients not receiving PRRT (4.4 vs. 1.4 y, P = 0.001), whereas no difference was seen for 18F-FDG-negative patients. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET is useful for risk stratification of all NEN grades and is superior to histologic grading. 18F-FDG PET could differentiate G1 and G2 tumors into low- and high-risk groups. In the selection of therapy and for risk stratification of NEN patients, 18F-FDG PET status should be considered.
Authors: James V Alvarez; George K Belka; Tien-Chi Pan; Chien-Chung Chen; Eric Blankemeyer; Abass Alavi; Joel S Karp; Lewis A Chodosh Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Camilla B Johnbeck; Ulrich Knigge; Seppo W Langer; Annika Loft; Anne Kiil Berthelsen; Birgitte Federspiel; Tina Binderup; Andreas Kjaer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marco Gerlinger; Andrew J Rowan; Stuart Horswell; James Larkin; David Endesfelder; Eva Gronroos; Pierre Martinez; Nicholas Matthews; Aengus Stewart; Charles Swanton; M Math; Patrick Tarpey; Ignacio Varela; Benjamin Phillimore; Sharmin Begum; Neil Q McDonald; Adam Butler; David Jones; Keiran Raine; Calli Latimer; Claudio R Santos; Mahrokh Nohadani; Aron C Eklund; Bradley Spencer-Dene; Graham Clark; Lisa Pickering; Gordon Stamp; Martin Gore; Zoltan Szallasi; Julian Downward; P Andrew Futreal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mei-Yin C Polley; Samuel C Y Leung; Lisa M McShane; Dongxia Gao; Judith C Hugh; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giuseppe Viale; Lila A Zabaglo; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; John M S Bartlett; Allen M Gown; W Fraser Symmans; Tammy Piper; Erika Mehl; Rebecca A Enos; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elettra Merola; Andrea Michielan; Umberto Rozzanigo; Marco Erini; Sandro Sferrazza; Stefano Marcucci; Chiara Sartori; Chiara Trentin; Giovanni de Pretis; Franca Chierichetti Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-02-27