13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correlation of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Parameters with Patterns of Disease Progression in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer after Definitive Chemoradiotherapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          A proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer never develop metastatic disease. We evaluated a role for 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in identifying a subset of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) who never develop metastatic disease and only experience local disease and may therefore benefit from local treatment intensification.

          Material and methods

          Patients with histologically confirmed LAPC entered a single-centre phase II study of definitive upfront chemoradiotherapy (CRT). All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT before and 6 weeks after CRT. Tumour volume, standardised uptake values (SUV max, SUV peak, SUV mean, SUV median) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured on each scan and the response in each parameter was evaluated. The presence or absence of metastatic disease was noted on contrast-enhanced CT carried out every 3 months for 1 year and then at clinician discretion.

          Results

          Twenty-three patients with LAPC were recruited; 17/23 completed treatment and had interpretable sequential imaging. Twenty-four per cent of patients only ever experienced local disease. Median pre-CRT FDG-PET parameters were significantly lower in patients with local disease only during follow-up compared with those who developed metastatic disease: SUV max 3.8 versus 8.6 ( P = 0.006), SUV peak 2.5 versus 7.5 ( P = 0.002), SUV mean 1.8 versus 3.3 ( P = 0.001), SUV median 1.7 versus 3.0 ( P = 0.002), TLG 26.9 versus 115.9 ( P = 0.006). Tumour volume, post-CRT FDG-PET values and their relative change were not statistically different between local disease and metastatic disease groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves for pre-CRT FDG-PET parameters to predict those who never develop metastatic disease all had areas under the curve (AUCs) ≥ 0.932. Pre-CRT FDG-PET SUV max < 6.2 predicted patients with local disease only during follow-up with 100.0% sensitivity and 92.3% specificity, 80.0% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value.

          Conclusions

          Our findings suggest that patients with less FDG-avid tumours are less likely to metastasise and may therefore benefit from upfront local treatment intensification.

          Highlights

          • A proportion of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer do not develop detectable metastatic disease.

          • Locally advanced pancreatic tumours that are not FDG-avid tend not to metastasise and patients die because of locally progressive disease.

          • This subgroup of patients may benefit from treatment interventions that aim to optimise local control.

          • FDG-PET SUV max offers a good summary of the metabolic activity of pancreatic tumours.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

          The purpose of this article is to review the status and limitations of anatomic tumor response metrics including the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1. This article also reviews qualitative and quantitative approaches to metabolic tumor response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET and proposes a draft framework for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0. PubMed searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific types), treatment response, region of interest, and derivative references, were performed. Abstracts and articles judged most relevant to the goals of this report were reviewed with emphasis on limitations and strengths of the anatomic and PET approaches to treatment response assessment. On the basis of these data and the authors' experience, draft criteria were formulated for PET tumor response to treatment. Approximately 3,000 potentially relevant references were screened. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has limitations in response assessments. For example, despite effective treatment, changes in tumor size can be minimal in tumors such as lymphomas, sarcoma, hepatomas, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. CT tumor density, contrast enhancement, or MRI characteristics appear more informative than size but are not yet routinely applied. RECIST criteria may show progression of tumor more slowly than WHO criteria. RECIST 1.1 criteria (assessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci, vs. 10 in RECIST) result in a higher complete response rate than the original RECIST criteria, at least in lymph nodes. Variability appears greater in assessing progression than in assessing response. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to (18)F-FDG PET response assessment have been applied and require a consistent PET methodology to allow quantitative assessments. Statistically significant changes in tumor standardized uptake value (SUV) occur in careful test-retest studies of high-SUV tumors, with a change of 20% in SUV of a region 1 cm or larger in diameter; however, medically relevant beneficial changes are often associated with a 30% or greater decline. The more extensive the therapy, the greater the decline in SUV with most effective treatments. Important components of the proposed PERCIST criteria include assessing normal reference tissue values in a 3-cm-diameter region of interest in the liver, using a consistent PET protocol, using a fixed small region of interest about 1 cm(3) in volume (1.2-cm diameter) in the most active region of metabolically active tumors to minimize statistical variability, assessing tumor size, treating SUV lean measurements in the 1 (up to 5 optional) most metabolically active tumor focus as a continuous variable, requiring a 30% decline in SUV for "response," and deferring to RECIST 1.1 in cases that do not have (18)F-FDG avidity or are technically unsuitable. Criteria to define progression of tumor-absent new lesions are uncertain but are proposed. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, particularly in assessing the activity of newer cancer therapies that stabilize disease, whereas (18)F-FDG PET appears particularly valuable in such cases. The proposed PERCIST 1.0 criteria should serve as a starting point for use in clinical trials and in structured quantitative clinical reporting. Undoubtedly, subsequent revisions and enhancements will be required as validation studies are undertaken in varying diseases and treatments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer.

            (18)F-FDG PET is often used in clinical routine for diagnosis, staging, and response to therapy assessment or prediction. The standardized uptake value (SUV) in the primary or regional area is the most common quantitative measurement derived from PET images used for those purposes. The aim of this study was to propose and evaluate new parameters obtained by textural analysis of baseline PET scans for the prediction of therapy response in esophageal cancer. Forty-one patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer treated with combined radiochemotherapy were included in this study. All patients underwent pretreatment whole-body (18)F-FDG PET. Patients were treated with radiotherapy and alkylatinlike agents (5-fluorouracil-cisplatin or 5-fluorouracil-carboplatin). Patients were classified as nonresponders (progressive or stable disease), partial responders, or complete responders according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Different image-derived indices obtained from the pretreatment PET tumor images were considered. These included usual indices such as maximum SUV, peak SUV, and mean SUV and a total of 38 features (such as entropy, size, and magnitude of local and global heterogeneous and homogeneous tumor regions) extracted from the 5 different textures considered. The capacity of each parameter to classify patients with respect to response to therapy was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05). Specificity and sensitivity (including 95% confidence intervals) for each of the studied parameters were derived using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. Relationships between pairs of voxels, characterizing local tumor metabolic nonuniformities, were able to significantly differentiate all 3 patient groups (P < 0.0006). Regional measures of tumor characteristics, such as size of nonuniform metabolic regions and corresponding intensity nonuniformities within these regions, were also significant factors for prediction of response to therapy (P = 0.0002). Receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis showed that tumor textural analysis can provide nonresponder, partial-responder, and complete-responder patient identification with higher sensitivity (76%-92%) than any SUV measurement. Textural features of tumor metabolic distribution extracted from baseline (18)F-FDG PET images allow for the best stratification of esophageal carcinoma patients in the context of therapy-response prediction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine plus radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial.

              The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the role of radiation therapy with concurrent gemcitabine (GEM) compared with GEM alone in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer. Patients with localized unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (at 1,000 mg/m(2)/wk for weeks 1 to 6, followed by 1 week rest, then for 3 of 4 weeks) or GEM (600 mg/m(2)/wk for weeks 1 to 5, then 4 weeks later 1,000 mg/m(2) for 3 of 4 weeks) plus radiotherapy (starting on day 1, 1.8 Gy/Fx for total of 50.4 Gy). Measurement of quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary questionnaire was also performed. Of 74 patients entered on trial and randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (arm A; n = 37) or GEM plus radiation (arm B; n = 34), patients in arm B had greater incidence of grades 4 and 5 toxicities (41% v 9%), but grades 3 and 4 toxicities combined were similar (77% in A v 79% in B). No statistical differences were seen in quality of life measurements at 6, 15 to 16, and 36 weeks. The primary end point was survival, which was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 11.4 months) and 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 15.5 months) for arms A and B, respectively (one-sided P = .017 by stratified log-rank test). This trial demonstrates improved overall survival with the addition of radiation therapy to GEM in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer, with acceptable toxicity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)
                Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)
                Clinical Oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)
                W.B. Saunders
                0936-6555
                1433-2981
                1 June 2017
                June 2017
                : 29
                : 6
                : 370-377
                Affiliations
                []CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Gray Laboratories, Oxford, UK
                []Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
                Author notes
                []Author for correspondence: J.M. Wilson, CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Gray Laboratories, Old Road Campus Research Building, Off Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation OncologyGray LaboratoriesOld Road Campus Research BuildingOff Roosevelt DriveOxfordOX3 7DQUK james.wilson@ 123456icr.ac.uk
                [‡]

                Present address: The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton SM2 5NG, UK.

                Article
                S0936-6555(17)30066-3
                10.1016/j.clon.2017.01.038
                5429392
                28190636
                d4295a0d-938e-425d-8413-b1b7cfc7c632
                © 2017 Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 8 June 2016
                : 9 January 2017
                : 17 January 2017
                Categories
                Original Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                chemoradiotherapy,fdg-pet,pancreatic cancer,treatment strategy selection

                Comments

                Comment on this article