| Literature DB >> 34943426 |
Domenico Albano1, Francesco Dondi1, Angelica Mazzoletti1, Pietro Bellini1, Carlo Rodella2, Francesco Bertagna1.
Abstract
The clinical and prognostic role of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (2-[18F]FDG PET/CT) in the study of patients affected by differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) with positive serum thyroglobulin (Tg) level and negative [131I] whole-body scan ([131I]WBS) has already been demonstrated. However, the potential prognostic role of semi-quantitative PET metabolic volume features, such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), has not yet been clearly investigated. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate whether the main metabolic PET/CT parameters may predict the prognosis. We retrospectively included 122 patients with a positive 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT for DTC disease after a negative [131I]WBS with Tg > 10 ng/mL. The maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean), MTV and TLG of the hypermetabolic lesion, total MTV (tMTV) and total TLG (tTLG) were measured for each scan. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were plotted according to the Kaplan-Meier analysis. After a median follow up of 53 months, relapse/progression of disease occurred in 87 patients and death in 42. The median PFS and OS were 19 months (range 1-132 months) and 46 months (range 1-145 months). tMTV and tTLG were the only independent prognostic factors for OS. No variables were significantly correlated with PFS. The best thresholds derived in our sample were 6.6 cm3 for MTV and 119.4 for TLG. In patients with negative WBS and Tg > 10 ng/mL, 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT metabolic volume parameters (tMTV and tTLG) may help to predict OS.Entities:
Keywords: 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT; DTC; MTV; TLG; thyroid cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 34943426 PMCID: PMC8700137 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Flowchart of patients included.
The main characteristics of our patients (n = 122).
| Mean SD (Range) | Patients | |
|---|---|---|
| Age years | 56 ±14.4 (20–80) | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 67 (55%) | |
| Female | 55 (45%) | |
| Histotype | ||
| Papillary | 46 (38%) | |
| Follicular variant of papillary | 11 (9%) | |
| Follicular | 24 (20%) | |
| Aggressive variant | 23 (19%) | |
| Hurtle cell | 17 (14%) | |
| Unknown (Tx) | 1 (1%) | |
| Tumor size (mm) | 35 ± 15 (5–90) | |
| Multicentricity | 25 (20%) | |
| Thyroiditis | 13 (10%) | |
| T-stage at staging | ||
| sTx | 1 (1%) | |
| sT1 | 8 (7%) | |
| sT2 | 22 (18%) | |
| sT3 | 69 (56%) | |
| sT4 | 22 (18%) | |
| N-stage at staging | ||
| sN0 | 70 (57%) | |
| sN1a | 32 (26%) | |
| sN1b | 20 (14%) | |
| M-stage at staging | ||
| sM1 | 5 (9%) | |
| ATA class risk | ||
| Low | 16 (13%) | |
| Intermediate | 80 (66%) | |
| High | 26 (21%) | |
| Tg at the time of ablation (ng/mL) | 236 ± 962 (0.1–1001) | |
| TgAb positive at ablation | 18 (15%) | |
| Tg at time of PET/CT | 165 ± 320 (10–2020) | |
| First RAI activities administrated (GBq) | 3.2 ± 1 (1–5.5) | |
| Cumulative RAI activities administrated (GBq) | 310 ± 18.2 (3.7–77.7) | |
| N° RAI therapies | 4.4 ± 2.3 (1–10) |
Threshold values derived by using ROC curve analysis considering the entire population and death as final reference.
| Parameter | AUC (95% CI) | Cut-Off Value | Youden Index | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUVmax | 0.662 | 0.003 | 37.3 | 0.346 | 57% | 77.5% |
| SUVmean | 0.652 | 0.006 | 20.9 | 0.346 | 57% | 77.5% |
| MTV | 0.662 | 0.002 | 2 | 0.276 | 71% | 56% |
| TLG | 0.719 | <0.001 | 34.9 | 0.464 | 71% | 75% |
| tMTV | 0.702 | <0.001 | 6.6 | 0.334 | 81% | 53.5% |
| tTLG | 0.729 | <0.001 | 119.4 | 0.366 | 67% | 70% |
Figure 2Some examples of DTC patients with positive PET/CT. A patient with mediastinal and thoracic FDG positive disease and the lesion with higher uptake in the upper mediastinum ((a), SUVmax 55). A patient with brain metastases detected by PET/CT with uptake higher than the surrounding brain parenchyma ((b), SUVmax 20). A patient with liver metastases ((c), SUVmax 35).
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier curves relating to PFS and the PET/CT metrics ((a) SUVmax; (b) SUVmean; (c) MTV; (d) TLG; (e) tMTV; (f) tTLG).
Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS.
| Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| PFS | ||||
| Sex | 0.123 | 1.399 (0.910–2.150) | ||
| ATA class risk | 0.158 | 0.662 (0.345–1.183) | ||
| Age | 0.224 | 0.789 (0.400–1.540) | ||
| Tumor size | 0.450 | 1.240 (0.778–2.234) | ||
| Multicentricity | 0.637 | 1.187 (0.581–2.423) | ||
| Histotype | 0.849 | 1.376 (0.590–3.184) | ||
| Number of lesions at PET | 0.123 | 1.125 (0.874–1.201) | ||
| Presence of bone metastases | 0.200 | 1.900 (0.881–2.001) | ||
| Cumulative RAI activities administrated (GBq) | 0.507 | 1.308 (0.666–1.998) | ||
| N° radiometabolic therapies | 0.562 | 1.284 (0.712–1.999) | ||
| Tg at PET | 0.395 | 1.237 (0.757–2.029) | ||
| Watchful waiting approach | 0.825 | 0.959 (0.620–1.462) | ||
| SUVmax * | 0.407 | 1.208 (0.771–1.892) | ||
| SUVmean * | 0.462 | 1.184 (0.754–1.858) | ||
| MTV | 0.214 | 1.666 (0.890–2.574) | ||
| TLG | 0.111 | 1.445 (0.918–2.275) | ||
| tMTV * | 0.178 | 1.344 (0.872–2.073) | ||
| eTLG * | 0.780 | 1.063 (0.690–1.633) | ||
|
| ||||
| Gender | 0.390 | 1.513 (0.624–4.044) | ||
| ATA class risk | 0.370 | 0.445 (0.286–1.145) | ||
| Age | 0.450 | 0.888 (0.330–3.325) | ||
| Tumor size | 0.570 | 0.845 (0.400–2.252) | ||
| Multicentricity | 0.480 | 0.811 (0.319–3.325) | ||
| Histotype | 0.254 | 0.568 (0.233–5.561) | ||
| Number of lesions at PET | 0.530 | 1.358 (0.666–1.501) | ||
| Presence of bone metastases | 0.001 | 2.194 (1.001–4.222) | 0.009 | 3.999 (1.987–6.980) |
| Cumulative RAI activities administrated (GBq) | 0.219 | 1.046 (0.974–1.124) | ||
| N° radiometabolic therapies | 0.279 | 0.736 (0.413–1.298) | ||
| Tg at PET | 0.048 | 2.741 (0.964–7.787) | 0.321 | 0.850 (0.650–2.001) |
| Watchful waiting approach | 0.215 | 0.678 (0.369–1.251) | ||
| SUVmax * | 0.001 | 2.943 (1.544–5.603) | 0.221 | 0.991 (0.229–13.054) |
| SUVmean * | 0.007 | 3.053 (1.598–5.832) | 0.145 | 2.280 (0.263–16.121) |
| MTV | <0.001 | 3.240 (1.741–6.303) | 0.099 | 1.152 (0.881–2.354) |
| TLG | <0.001 | 6.051 (3.152–11.615) | 0.062 | 1.122 (0.789–2.266) |
| tMTV * | <0.001 | 2.894 (1.567–5.344) | 0.029 | 2.539 (1.097–5.874) |
| eTLG * | <0.001 | 3.799 (2.015–7.163) | 0.014 | 2.477 (1.198–5.123) |
PFS: progression-free survival; OS: overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; N°: number; SUV: standard uptake value; MTV: metabolic tumor volume; TLG: total lesion glycolysis. * Variables dichotomized using cutoff values after ROC analysis reported in Table 2.
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier curves relating to OS and the PET/CT metrics ((a) SUVmax; (b) SUVmean; (c) MTV; (d) TLG; (e) tMTV; (f) tTLG).