| Literature DB >> 35870900 |
Alejandra Martinez1,2, Elodie Chantalat3, Martina Aida Angeles4, Gwénaël Ferron4,5, Anne Ducassou6, Manon Daix4, Justine Attal6, Sarah Bétrian7, Amélie Lusque8, Erwan Gabiache9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of PET/CT functional parameters on survival, locoregional, and distant failure according to the most distant level of lymph node [18F]FDG uptake in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC).Entities:
Keywords: Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Locally advanced cervical cancer; Lymphatic metastasis; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Survival Analysis; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35870900 PMCID: PMC9308355 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09785-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.638
Patients’ characteristics (n = 148)
| Clinical characteristics | n (%) |
|---|---|
| 50 (27–77) | |
| 23.2 (15.4–39.8) | |
| Squamous | 131 (88.5) |
| Adenocarcinoma | 14 (9.5) |
| Adenosquamous | 3 (2.0) |
| IB2-IIAa | 36 (24.3) |
| IIB-IVA | 112 (75.7) |
BMI body mass index, FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
aPatients with stage IIA were stage IIA2, or had pelvic lymph node involvement on preoperative imaging
Tumor and pelvic lymph node metabolic activity according to lymph node status on PET/CT
| SUVmax | 13.9 (2.1–46.3) | 15.7 (7.3–34.4) | 14.8 (6.0–23.9) | |
| MTV (cc) | 25.9 (0.8–162.0) | 48.6 (8.8–127.0) | 52.3 (10.5–299.0) | |
| TLG (g/mL*cm3) | 197.6 (1.2–2495.0) | 432.7 (43.4–2204.0) | 353.4 (42.2–3181.0) | |
| SUVmax | N/A | 6.7 (1.7–23.9) | 6.6 (1.8–16.1) | 0.794 |
| SUVmean | N/A | 4.0 (1.3–12.6) | 4.1 (1.6–9.0) | 0.907 |
| Ratio of PLN SUVmax/tumor SUVmax | N/A | 0.40 (0.10–1.25) | 0.49 (0.12–0.95) | 0.467 |
| MTVPLN (cc) | N/A | 1.9 (0.3–22.8) | 2.4 (0.2–8.8) | 0.646 |
| TLG (g/mLxcm3) | N/A | 6.8 (0.6–152.2) | 10.4 (0.4–76.8) | 0.831 |
PLN pelvic lymph node, PALN para-aortic lymph node, N/A not applicable
Fig. 1a Overall survival (OS) according to lymph node spread; b Disease-free survival (DFS) according to lymph node spread; c OS according to MTV values; d DFS according to MTV values
Univariate analysis for overall and disease-free survival
| Age ≥ 55 vs < 55 years (ref.) | 0.58 (0.28–1.17) | 0.124 | 0.62 (0.35–1.12) | 0.109 |
| Histological subtype other than squamous vs squamous (ref.) | 0.99 (0.35–2.78) | 0.988 | 0.82 (0.33–2.05) | 0.668 |
| FIGO stage IIB-IVA vs IB2-IIA2 (ref.) | 3.54 (1.26–9.94) | 3.38 (1.45–7.88) | ||
| Tumor size on imaging (cm) | 1.35 (1.11–1.64) | 1.27 (1.08–1.50) | ||
| Tumor SUVmax | 1.07 (1.03–1.12) | 1.05 (1.01–1.09) | ||
| Tumor MTV (/10 cc) | 1.10 (1.04–1.16) | 1.07 (1.03–1.13) | ||
| PLN SUVmax | 1.15 (1.05–1.26) | 1.12 (1.03–1.21) | ||
| Number of PLN with uptake at FDG-PET/CT | 1.19 (1.07–1.33) | 1.17 (1.05–1.30) | ||
HR Hazard Ratio, CI Confidence Interval, FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value, MTV metabolic tumor volume, PLN pelvic lymph node, FDG-PET/CT fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography
Univariate analysis of overall and disease-free survival according to most distant level of lymph node uptake on [18F]FDG-PET/CT
| HR | HR | HR | HR | HR | HR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor SUVmax | 1.04 (0.99–1.09) | 0.133 | 1.10 (1.03–1.19) | 0.96 (0.86–1.07) | 0.463 | 1.08 (1.01–1.16) | 1.11 (1.02–1.21) | 0.98 (0.87–1.10) | 0.685 | |||
| Tumor MTV (/10 cc) | 1.10 (1.01–1.20) | 1.19 (1.03–1.38) | 1.02 (0.93–1.12) | 0.674 | 1.12 (1.00–1.25) | 0.057 | 1.22 (1.03–1.46) | 1.06 (0.98–1.16) | 0.161 | |||
| High tumor MTV | 5.14 (2.15–12.31) | 3.17 (1.02–9.83) | 1.15 (0.40–3.27) | 0.793 | 6.10 (1.89–19.70) | 3.46 (0.96–12.50) | 2.13 (0.59–7.70) | 0.236 | ||||
| Tumor size | 1.28 (0.96–1.71) | 0.087 | 1.57 (1.05–2.34) | 1.04 (0.75–1.43) | 0.819 | 1.42 (0.99–2.05) | 0.058 | 1.43 (0.91–2.25) | 0.118 | 1.23 (0.88–1.73) | 0.225 | |
| Nb of PLN fixation | N/A | N/A | 1.30 (1.10–1.53) | 1.05 (0.86–1.29) | 0.641 | N/A | N/A | 1.35 (1.11–1.64) | 1.04 (0.85–1.27) | 0.713 | ||
| PLN SUVmean | N/A | N/A | 1.32 (1.06–1.65) | 1.01 (0.75–1.37) | 0.939 | N/A | N/A | 1.42 (1.11–1.80) | 1.14 (0.81–1.59) | 0.459 | ||
| PLN SUVmax | N/A | N/A | 1.18 (1.06–1.31) | 1.03 (0.90–1.17) | 0.693 | N/A | N/A | 1.22 (1.08–1.37) | 1.06 (0.91–1.23) | 0.432 | ||
PLN pelvic lymph node, PALN para-aortic lymph node, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, N/A not applicable
Fig. 2PET images of a patient presenting with a cervical tumor with left pelvic lymph node involvement. a) cervical tumor contouring with semi-automatic tumor thresholding method at 40% of the SUVmax (SUVmax 22.8; TLG 372.9 g/ml*cm3; MTV 37.16 cm3); b) the same procedure with a left pelvic involved lymph node with SUVmax 7.9; TLG 8.7 g/ml*cm3; MTV 1.65 cm3; c) Maximum intensity projection showing the absence of distant metastasis