Douglas J Harrison1, Yueh-Yun Chi2, Jing Tian2, Pooja Hingorani1, Leo Mascarenhas3, Geoffrey B McCowage4, Brenda J Weigel5, Rajkumar Venkatramani6, Suzanne L Wolden7, Torunn I Yock8, David A Rodeberg9, Andrea A Hayes-Jordan10, Lisa A Teot11, Sheri L Spunt12, William H Meyer13, Douglas S Hawkins14, Barry L Shulkin15, Marguerite T Parisi14. 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Children's Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Weastmead, NSW, Australia. 5. University of Minnesota/Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Baylor College of Medicine/Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. 9. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA. 10. UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 11. Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 12. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 13. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 14. Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA. 15. Saint Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strategies to optimize management in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) include risk stratification to assign therapy aiming to minimize treatment morbidity yet improve outcomes. This analysis evaluated the relationship between complete metabolic response (CMR) as assessed by 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG-PET) imaging and event-free survival (EFS) in intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) RMS patients. METHODS: FDG-PET imaging characteristics, including assessment of CMR and maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, were evaluated by central review. Institutional reports of SUVmax were used when SUVmax values could not be determined by central review. One hundred and thirty IR and 105 HR patients had FDG-PET scans submitted for central review or had SUVmax data available from institutional report at any time point. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and EFS. RESULTS: SUVmax at study entry did not correlate with EFS for IR (p = 0.32) or HR (p = 0.86) patients. Compared to patients who did not achieve a CMR, EFS was not superior for IR patients who achieved a CMR at weeks 4 (p = 0.66) or 15 (p = 0.46), nor for HR patients who achieved CMR at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.28). Change in SUVmax at week 4 (p = 0.21) or 15 (p = 0.91) for IR patients or at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.61) for HR patients did not correlate with EFS. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, FDG-PET does not appear to predict EFS in IR or HR-RMS. It remains to be determined whether FDG-PET has a role in predicting survival outcomes in other RMS subpopulations.
BACKGROUND: Strategies to optimize management in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) include risk stratification to assign therapy aiming to minimize treatment morbidity yet improve outcomes. This analysis evaluated the relationship between complete metabolic response (CMR) as assessed by 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG-PET) imaging and event-free survival (EFS) in intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) RMS patients. METHODS: FDG-PET imaging characteristics, including assessment of CMR and maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, were evaluated by central review. Institutional reports of SUVmax were used when SUVmax values could not be determined by central review. One hundred and thirty IR and 105 HR patients had FDG-PET scans submitted for central review or had SUVmax data available from institutional report at any time point. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and EFS. RESULTS: SUVmax at study entry did not correlate with EFS for IR (p = 0.32) or HR (p = 0.86) patients. Compared to patients who did not achieve a CMR, EFS was not superior for IR patients who achieved a CMR at weeks 4 (p = 0.66) or 15 (p = 0.46), nor for HR patients who achieved CMR at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.28). Change in SUVmax at week 4 (p = 0.21) or 15 (p = 0.91) for IR patients or at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.61) for HR patients did not correlate with EFS. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, FDG-PET does not appear to predict EFS in IR or HR-RMS. It remains to be determined whether FDG-PET has a role in predicting survival outcomes in other RMS subpopulations.
Authors: Sonia R Skamene; Rajan Rakheja; Kristina R Dahlstrom; Kristina R Dalhstrom; David Roberge; Ayoub Nahal; Mathieu Charest; Robert Turcotte; Marc Hickeson; Carolyn Freeman Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 3.454
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: Douglas S Hawkins; Scott M Schuetze; James E Butrynski; Joseph G Rajendran; Cheryl B Vernon; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bas Vaarwerk; Johanna H van der Lee; Willemijn B Breunis; Daniel Orbach; Julia C Chisholm; Nathalie Cozic; Meriel Jenney; Rick R van Rijn; Kieran McHugh; Soledad Gallego; Heidi Glosli; Christine Devalck; Mark N Gaze; Anna Kelsey; Christophe Bergeron; Michael C G Stevens; Odile Oberlin; Veronique Minard-Colin; Johannes H M Merks Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lars M Wagner; Nathalie Kremer; Michael J Gelfand; Susan E Sharp; Brian K Turpin; Rajaram Nagarajan; Gregory M Tiao; Joseph G Pressey; Julie Yin; Roshni Dasgupta Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Abby R Rosenberg; James R Anderson; Elizabeth Lyden; David A Rodeberg; Suzanne L Wolden; Simon C Kao; David M Parham; Carola Arndt; Douglas S Hawkins Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Brenda J Weigel; Elizabeth Lyden; James R Anderson; William H Meyer; David M Parham; David A Rodeberg; Jeff M Michalski; Douglas S Hawkins; Carola A S Arndt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colleen M Costelloe; Homer A Macapinlac; John E Madewell; Nancy E Fitzgerald; Osama R Mawlawi; Eric M Rohren; A Kevin Raymond; Valerae O Lewis; Peter M Anderson; Roland L Bassett; Robyn K Harrell; Edith M Marom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joshua S Scheuermann; Janet R Saffer; Joel S Karp; Anthony M Levering; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jacquelyn N Crane; Wei Xue; Amira Qumseya; Zhengya Gao; Carola A S Arndt; Sarah S Donaldson; Douglas J Harrison; Douglas S Hawkins; Corinne M Linardic; Leo Mascarenhas; William H Meyer; David A Rodeberg; Erin R Rudzinski; Barry L Shulkin; David O Walterhouse; Rajkumar Venkatramani; Aaron R Weiss Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2022-03-06 Impact factor: 3.838
Authors: Gabriel C Fine; Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Ahmed Ebada Salem; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 6.575