Staging and Response Evaluation to Neo-Adjuvant Chemoradiation in Esophageal Cancers Using 18FDG PET/ CT with Standardized Protocol.
Adenocarcinoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
/ diagnostic imaging
Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant
/ methods
Esophageal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
/ methods
Neoplasm Staging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Radiopharmaceuticals
18FDG PET/CT and CT
Esophageal Cancer
staging and response evaluation, neoadjuvant chemoradiation
standardized protocol
Journal
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP
ISSN: 2476-762X
Titre abrégé: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev
Pays: Thailand
ID NLM: 101130625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2019
01 07 2019
Historique:
received:
06
04
2018
entrez:
28
7
2019
pubmed:
28
7
2019
medline:
7
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background: Precise staging of esophageal cancer (EC) is important for selection of optimal treatment option
and prognostication. Aim of this study was to assess the role of 18FDG PET/CT in staging and response evaluation
to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCR) in EC patients using standardized imaging protocol. Material and methods:
This prospective study was conducted at PET/CT Section of Department of Radiology, Aga Khan University Hospital
Karachi, Pakistan from July 2017 till February 2018. We included 34 biopsy proven EC patients who had 18FDG
PET/CT and CT of neck, chest and abdomen as part of initial staging. Eleven patients had post-nCR 18FDG PET/CT
using standardized imaging protocol as per EANM guidelines. CT and PET/CT based staging was compared. Based
on PERCIST criteria, response evaluation was assessed using change in highest SUVmax (%ΔSUVmax) in baseline
and follow-up scans (primary lesion, node or extra-nodal metastases). Results: Mean age of cohort was 57 ± 14 years
(23 males and 11 females) having adenocarcinoma (AC) in 23 and squamous cell cancer (SCC) in 11 patients. Mean
18FDG dose, uptake time and hepatic SUVmean for baseline scans were 169 ±54 MBq, 65 ±10 minute and 1.91 ± 0.49
which were within ± 10%, ± 15% and ± 20% for follow-up scans in 11 patients respectively. Mean size (craniocaudal
dimension in mm) and SUVmax of primary tumor was 56 ±27 mm and 13.4 ± 4.7. Based on 18FDG PET/CT findings,
patients were categorized into N0 (10/34), N1 (09/34), N2 (11/34) and N3 (04/34) while 11/32 had stage IV disease.
No significant difference was seen in AC and SCC groups. CT found stage IV disease in 3/34 (09%) while PET/CT
found in 11/34 (32%; p value: 0.019) cases. PET/CT showed concordance with CT in 41% while discordance (all
with upstaging) seen in 59%. On follow-up PET/CT, complete metabolic response was seen in 5/11 (45%) and partial
metabolic response was noted in 6/11 (55% - p value non-significant) patients. Median %ΔSUVmax over primary
lesions was 49.84% (-32.69 -100%) while over nodal sites it was 41.18% (-82.60 -100%). Conclusion: We conclude
that 18FDG PET/CT was found a sensitive tool in initial staging of EC. Compared with CT, it had higher diagnostic
accuracy for distant nodal and extra-nodal metastasis. %ΔSUVmax between baseline and post-nCR studies acquired
with standardized protocol had changed management in more than half of our patients. For response evaluation in EC
more studies with standardized 18FDG PET/CT imaging protocols are warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31350957
doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.7.2003
pmc: PMC6745203
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2003-2008Références
J Nucl Med. 2012 Jun;53(6):864-71
pubmed: 22582047
J Nucl Med. 2017 May;58(5):723-729
pubmed: 27738011
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017 Dec 29;18(12):3357-3363
pubmed: 29286604
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Nov;107:128-137
pubmed: 27823640
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36(3):354-61
pubmed: 18931839
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jul;19(7):2142-8
pubmed: 22395974
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Aug 17;112(33-34):545-52
pubmed: 26356551
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(18):7719-24
pubmed: 25292052
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
pubmed: 19403881
J Nucl Med. 2011 Dec;52 Suppl 2:93S-100S
pubmed: 22144561
Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 05;5:11075
pubmed: 26242464
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;17(6):1471-4
pubmed: 20180029
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Nov;51(17):2545-52
pubmed: 26321501
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 May 15;6(5):112-20
pubmed: 24834141
Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2016 Summer;4(2):59-65
pubmed: 27408893
Arq Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan-Mar;53(1):44-8
pubmed: 27281504
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006 Jul;33(7):759-69
pubmed: 16470369
Radiographics. 2014 Oct;34(6):1722-40
pubmed: 25310426
Clin Endosc. 2014 Nov;47(6):523-9
pubmed: 25505718
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219