BACKGROUND: The sensitivity of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is low; however, clinical evidence demonstrating its prognostic value in patients with HCC has recently been reported. This study aimed to assess the value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT as a tool for evaluating the response of HCC to lenvatinib treatment. METHODS: We evaluated 11 consecutive patients with HCC diagnosed by dynamic CT or magnetic resonance imaging combined with 18F-FDG-PET/CT from April 2018 to December 2019. The tumor-to-normal liver ratio (TLR) of the target tumor was measured before and during the course of lenvatinib treatment with 18F-FDG-PET/CT (pre and post analysis, respectively), with a TLR ≥2 classified as PET-positive HCC. At the time of each evaluation, we also used the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the modified RECIST (mRECIST), and the tumor marker alfa-fetoprotein (AFP). RESULTS: Of 11 patients, 3 (27%) and 8 (73%) had an objective response to lenvatinib treatment at the time of post-analysis by RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, respectively. There were 3 (27%) and 7 (64%) patients with PET-positive HCC at the time of pre- and post-analysis, respectively. There was a significant correlation between the rates of change in AFP and TLR during lenvatinib treatment (r = 0.69, p = 0.019). Based on these results, we were able to perform liver resection on 4 patients with PET-positive HCC as conversion therapy. Three samples from these patients showed poorly differentiated tumors. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG-PET/CT has potential as an evaluation tool for describing biological tumor behavior and reflecting disease progression, location, and treatment response. This modality may provide useful information for considering prognosis and subsequent therapy.
BACKGROUND: The sensitivity of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is low; however, clinical evidence demonstrating its prognostic value in patients with HCC has recently been reported. This study aimed to assess the value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT as a tool for evaluating the response of HCC to lenvatinib treatment. METHODS: We evaluated 11 consecutive patients with HCC diagnosed by dynamic CT or magnetic resonance imaging combined with 18F-FDG-PET/CT from April 2018 to December 2019. The tumor-to-normal liver ratio (TLR) of the target tumor was measured before and during the course of lenvatinib treatment with 18F-FDG-PET/CT (pre and post analysis, respectively), with a TLR ≥2 classified as PET-positive HCC. At the time of each evaluation, we also used the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the modified RECIST (mRECIST), and the tumor marker alfa-fetoprotein (AFP). RESULTS: Of 11 patients, 3 (27%) and 8 (73%) had an objective response to lenvatinib treatment at the time of post-analysis by RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, respectively. There were 3 (27%) and 7 (64%) patients with PET-positive HCC at the time of pre- and post-analysis, respectively. There was a significant correlation between the rates of change in AFP and TLR during lenvatinib treatment (r = 0.69, p = 0.019). Based on these results, we were able to perform liver resection on 4 patients with PET-positive HCC as conversion therapy. Three samples from these patients showed poorly differentiated tumors. CONCLUSION:18F-FDG-PET/CT has potential as an evaluation tool for describing biological tumor behavior and reflecting disease progression, location, and treatment response. This modality may provide useful information for considering prognosis and subsequent therapy.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Myeong Jun Song; Si Hyun Bae; Sung Won Lee; Do Sun Song; Hee Yeon Kim; Ie Ryung Yoo; Joon-Il Choi; Young June Lee; Ho Jong Chun; Hae Giu Lee; Jong Young Choi; Seung Kew Yoon Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M A Khan; C S Combs; E M Brunt; V J Lowe; M K Wolverson; H Solomon; B T Collins; A M Di Bisceglie Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Jong Doo Lee; Mijin Yun; Jae Myun Lee; Youjeong Choi; Youn-Hee Choi; Ji Su Kim; Se Jong Kim; Kyung Sik Kim; Woo Ick Yang; Young Nyun Park; Kwang-Hyub Han; Woo Jung Lee; Naechun Yoo; Sang Moo Lim; Jeon Han Park Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alejandro Forner; Carmen Ayuso; María Varela; Jordi Rimola; Amelia J Hessheimer; Carlos Rodriguez de Lope; María Reig; Luís Bianchi; Josep M Llovet; Jordi Bruix Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kelley Weinfurtner; Joshua Cho; Daniel Ackerman; James X Chen; Abashai Woodard; Wuyan Li; David Ostrowski; Michael C Soulen; Mandeep Dagli; Susan Shamimi-Noori; Jeffrey Mondschein; Deepak Sudheendra; S William Stavropoulos; Shilpa Reddy; Jonas Redmond; Tamim Khaddash; Darshana Jhala; Evan S Siegelman; Emma E Furth; Stephen J Hunt; Gregory J Nadolski; David E Kaplan; Terence P F Gade Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 4.996