nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.01.2016 | ONCOLOGY IMAGING

Anal cancer FDG-PET standard uptake value: correlation with tumor characteristics, treatment response and survival

verfasst von: Letizia Deantonio, Maria Elisa Milia, Tiziana Cena, Gianmauro Sacchetti, Carola Perotti, Marco Brambilla, Lucia Turri, Marco Krengli

Erschienen in: La radiologia medica | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The present work studies the correlation of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) standardized uptake value (SUV) with tumor characteristics, clinical response and prognosis in a series of anal canal cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Fifty-five patients were included in the present analysis. PET maximum SUV (SUVmax) of primary tumor was calculated for each patient. The correlation with clinical parameters, tumor response and survival data were analyzed.

Results

SUVmax significantly correlated with T-stage (p = 0.01) and histology (p = 0.03). Median SUVmax was higher for lesions with partial response (PR, 21/55, 38 %) than for lesions with complete response (CR, 34/55, 62 %) but without statistical significance (p = 0.17). The actuarial disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 53.0 and 77.8 % at 2 years and 41.3 and 58.6 % at 5 years, respectively. Median SUVmax did not statistically correlate with clinical response or survival. CR and T1–T2 stage were statistically significant prognostic factors for disease-free survival (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively) and CR was significant also for overall survival (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT SUVmax cannot directly predict tumor response and survival, but it is strongly associated with tumor characteristics such as primary tumor stage and histology, being the first one of the most important and validated prognostic factors for anal cancer.

Glynne-Jones R, Nilsson PJ, Aschele C et al (2014) Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:1165–1176PubMedCrossRef

Martin V, Zanellato E, Franzetti-Pellanda A et al (2014) EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA characterization in squamous cell anal cancer. Histol Histopathol 29:513–521PubMed

Nigro ND, Vaitkevicius VK, Considine B (1974) Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a preliminary report. Dis Colon Rectum 17:354–356PubMedCrossRef

UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial Working UK Party Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (1996) Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. Lancet 348:1049–1054CrossRef

Bartelink H, Roelofsen F, Eschwege F et al (1997) Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer radiotherapy and gastrointestinal cooperative groups. J Clin Oncol 15:2040–2049PubMed

Myerson RJ, Kong F, Birnbaum EH et al (2001) Radiation therapy for epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal, clinical and treatment factors associated with outcome. Radiother Oncol 61:15–22PubMedCrossRef

Scherrer A, Reboul F, Martin D, Dupuy JC, Menu Y (1990) CT of malignant anal canal tumours. Radiographics 10:433–453PubMedCrossRef

Roach SC, Hulse PA, Moulding FJ, Wilson R, Carrington BM (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of anal canal. Clin Radiol 60:1111–1119PubMedCrossRef

Myerson RJ, Garofalo MC, El Naqa I et al (2009) Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: an radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:824–830PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

10.

Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL et al (2010) Prognostic factors derived from a prospective database dictate clinical biology of anal cancer. The intergroup trial (RTOG 98-11). Cancer 116:4007–4013PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gunderson LL, Moughan J, Ajani JA et al (2013) RTOG 98-11. anal carcinoma: impact of TN category of disease on survival, disease relapse, and colostomy failure in US gastrointestinal intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase 3 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87:638–645PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Bassi MC, Turri L, Sacchetti G et al (2008) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in preoperative conformal radiotherapy of rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:1423–1426PubMedCrossRef

13.

Deantonio L, Beldi D, Gambaro G et al (2008) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and radiotherapy treatment planning of head and neck carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 3:29PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Yoo J, Henderson S, Walker-Dilks C (2013) Evidence-based guideline recommendations on the use of positron emission tomography imaging in head and neck cancer. Clin Oncol 25:33–66CrossRef

15.

Trautmann TG, Zuger JH (2005) Positron emission tomography for pre-treatment staging and posttreatment evaluation in cancer of the anal canal. Mol Imaging Biol 7:309–313PubMedCrossRef

16.

Cotter SE, Grigsby PW, Siegel BA et al (2006) PET/CT in the evaluation of anal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:720–725PubMedCrossRef

17.

Nguyen BT, Joon DL, Khoo V et al (2008) Assessing the impact of FDG-PET in the management of anal cancer. Radiother Oncol 87:376–382PubMedCrossRef

18.

Winton E, Heriot AG, Ng M et al (2009) The impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the staging, management and outcome of anal cancer. Br J Cancer 100:693–700PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Krengli M, Milia ME, Turri L et al (2010) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in conformal radiotherapy of anal carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 5:10PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Kidd E, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer 110:1738–1744PubMedCrossRef

21.

Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M et al (2008) Primary tumour SUVmax measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol 3:6–12PubMedCrossRef

22.

Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

23.

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247PubMedCrossRef

24.

Kidd EA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Grigsby PW (2010) Anal cancer maximum F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography is correlated with prognosis. Radiother Oncol 95:288–291PubMedCrossRef

25.

Bazan JG, Koong AC, Kapp DS et al (2013) Metabolic tumour volume predicts disease progression and survival in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. J Nucl Med 54:27–32PubMedCrossRef

26.

Das P, Bhatia S, Eng C et al (2007) Predictors and patterns of recurrence after definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:794–800PubMedCrossRef

27.

Gunderson LL, Winter KA, Ajani JA et al (2012) Long-term update of US GI Intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase III trial for anal carcinoma: survival, relapse, and colostomy failure with concurrent chemoradiation involving fluorouracil/mitomycin versus fluorouracil/cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 30:4344–4351PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Rizk N, Downey RJ, Akhurst T et al (2006) Preoperative 18 FDG-PET standardized uptake values predict survival after esophageal adenocarcinoma resection. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1076–1081PubMedCrossRef

29.

Lee P, Weerasuriya DK, Lavori PW et al (2007) Metabolic tumour burden predicts for disease progression and death in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:328–333PubMedCrossRef

30.

Higgins A, Hoang JK, Roach M et al (2012) Analysis of pretreatment FDG-PET SUV parameters in head-and-neck cancer: tumour SUV_mean has superior prognostic value. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:548–553PubMedCrossRef

31.

Lee P, Bazan JG, Lavori PW et al (2012) Metabolic tumour volume is an independent prognostic factor in patients treated definitively for non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 13:52–58PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Tang C, Murphy JD, Khong B et al (2012) Validation that metabolic tumour volume predicts outcome in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:1514–1520PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

33.

Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F et al (2008) Tumor response and survival predicted by post-therapy FDG-PET/CT in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:180–186PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Anal cancer FDG-PET standard uptake value: correlation with tumor characteristics, treatment response and survival
verfasst von: Letizia Deantonio
Maria Elisa Milia
Tiziana Cena
Gianmauro Sacchetti
Carola Perotti
Marco Brambilla
Lucia Turri
Marco Krengli
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2016
Verlag: Springer Milan
Erschienen in: La radiologia medica / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0033-8362
Elektronische ISSN: 1826-6983
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0562-9

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Anal cancer FDG-PET standard uptake value: correlation with tumor characteristics, treatment response and survival