Download PDF
Endoscopy 2008; 40(6): 464-471
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1077302
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Importance of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and endoscopic ultrasonography parameters in predicting survival following surgery for esophageal cancer

J.  M.  T.  Omloo1 , G.  W.  Sloof2 , R.  Boellaard3 , O.  S.  Hoekstra3 , P.  L.  Jager4 , H.  M.  van Dullemen5 , P.  Fockens6 , J.  T.  M.  Plukker7 , J.  J.  B.  van Lanschot1
  • 1Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Centre at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
  • 3Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Research, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 4Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • 5Department of Gastroenterology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • 6Department of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Centre at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 7Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 2 October 2007

accepted after revision 5 February 2008

Publication Date:
09 June 2008 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de J. M. T. Omloo et al., pp. 464Endoscopy 2008; 40(06): 544-544
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1306839

Background and study aims: To assess the prognostic importance of standardized uptake value (SUV) for 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) at positron emission tomography (PET) and of EUS parameters, in esophageal cancer patients primarily treated by surgery.

Patients and methods: Between October 2002 and August 2004 a prospective cohort study involved 125 patients, with histologically proven cancer of the esophagus, without evidence of distant metastases or locally irresectable disease based on extensive preoperative work-up, and fit to undergo major surgery. Follow-up was complete until October 2006, ensuring a minimal potential follow-up of 25 months.

Results: The median SUV was 0.27 (interquartile range 0.13 - 0.45), and was used as cutoff value between high (n = 62) and low (n = 63) SUV. Patients with a high SUV had a significantly worse disease-specific survival compared with patients with a low SUV (P = 0.04). Tumor location (P = 0.005), EUS T stage (P < 0.001), EUS N stage (P = 0.006) and clinical stage (P < 0.006) were also associated with disease-specific survival. However, in multivariate analysis only EUS T stage appeared to be of independent prognostic significance (P = 0.007).

Conclusion: In esophageal cancer patients, EUS T stage, EUS N stage, location and SUV of the primary tumor are pretreatment factors that are associated with disease-specific survival. However, only EUS T stage is an independent prognostic factor.

References

  • 1 DeMeester S R. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and cardia: a review of the disease and its treatment.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;  13 12-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lightdale C J. Esophageal cancer. American College of Gastroenterology.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 20-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van Westreenen H L, Westerterp M, Bossuyt P M. et al . Systematic review of the staging performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2004;  22 3805-3812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sobin L H. TNM Classifications of malignant tumors. 6th edition. New York; 2003 John Wiley & Sons
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Buskens C J, Van Rees B P, Sivula A. et al . Prognostic significance of elevated cyclooxygenase 2 expression in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  122 1800-1807
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Koppert L B, Wijnhoven B P, Van Dekken D H. et al . The molecular biology of esophageal adenocarcinoma.  J Surg Oncol. 2005;  92 169-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lagarde S M, ten Kate F J, Reitsma J B. et al . Prognostic factors in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;  24 4347-4355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lagarde S M, ten Kate F J, Richel D J. et al . Molecular prognostic factors in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;  14 977-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Flamen P, Lerut A, van Cutsem E. et al . Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2000;  18 3202-3210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kato H, Miyazaki T, Nakajima M. et al . The incremental effect of positron emission tomography on diagnostic accuracy in the initial staging of esophageal carcinoma.  Cancer. 2005;  103 148-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Czernin J, Phelps M E. Positron emission tomography scanning: current and future applications.  Annu Rev Med. 2002;  53 89-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gambhir S S, Czernin J, Schwimmer J. et al . A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature.  J Nucl Med. 2001;  42 1S-93S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Boellaard R, Krak N C, Hoekstra O S, Lammertsma A A. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45 1519-1527
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hoekstra C J, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra O S. et al . Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods.  Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;  27 731-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Krak N C, Boellaard R, Hoekstra O S. et al . Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;  32 294-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kroep J R, Van Groeningen C J, Cuesta M A. et al . Positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose for response monitoring in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer; a comparison of different analytical methods.  Mol Imaging Biol. 2003;  5 337-346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Thie J A. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45 1431-1434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Allal A S, Slosman D O, Kebdani T. et al . Prediction of outcome in head-and-neck cancer patients using the standardized uptake value of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;  59 1295-1300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Downey R J, Akhurst T, Gonen M. et al . Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection.  J Clin Oncol. 2004;  22 3255-3260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y. et al . Prognostic value of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer.  Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;  4 99-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schwarzbach M H, Hinz U, Mitrakopoulou-Strauss A. et al . Prognostic significance of preoperative [18-F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients with resectable soft tissue sarcomas.  Ann Surg. 2005;  241 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cerfolio R J, Bryant A S. Maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of esophageal cancer predicts stage, tumor biology, and survival.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;  82 391-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rizk N, Downey R J, Akhurst T. et al . Preoperative 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography standardized uptake values predict survival after esophageal adenocarcinoma resection.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;  81 1076-1081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Westreenen H L, Plukker J T, Cobben D C. et al . Prognostic value of the standardized uptake value in esophageal cancer.  Am J Roentgenol. 2005;  185 436-440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Choi J Y, Jang H J, Shim Y M. et al . 18F-FDG PET in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing curative surgery: prognostic implications.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45 1843-1850
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 vanWestreenen H L, Westerterp M, Sloof G W. et al . Limited additional value of positron emission tomography in staging oesophageal cancer.  Br J Surg. 2007;  94 1515-1520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Siewert J R, Feith M, Werner M, Stein H J. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1,002 consecutive patients.  Ann Surg. 2000;  232 353-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO .[Richtlijn Diagnostiek en behandeling oesofaguscarcinoom]. 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W. et al . Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;  34 392-404. Epub 2006 Oct 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Atkins C D. Overestimation of the prognostic significance of SUV measurement by positron emission tomography for non-small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;  23 6799-6800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Borst G R, Belderbos J S, Boellaard R. et al . Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.  Eur J Cancer. 2005;  41 1533-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Eschmann S M, Friedel G, Paulsen F. et al . Is standardised (18)F-FDG uptake value an outcome predictor in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer?.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sasaki R, Komaki R, Macapinlac H. et al . [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography predicts outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;  23 1136-1143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hoekstra C J, Hoekstra O S, Stroobants S G. et al . Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET.  J Nucl Med. 2002;  43 1304-1309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hong D, Lunagomez S, Kim E E. et al . Value of baseline positron emission tomography for predicting overall survival in patient with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.  Cancer. 2005;  104 1620-1626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mariette C, Balon J M, Maunoury V. et al . Value of endoscopic ultrasonography as a predictor of long-term survival in oesophageal carcinoma.  Br J Surg. 2003;  90 1367-1372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ajani J A. New proposal for postsurgery pathologic staging of esophageal or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. why bother?.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;  25 906-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 de Manzoni G, Pedrazzani C, Verlato G. et al . Comparison of old and new TNM systems for nodal staging in adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction.  Br J Surg. 2004;  91 296-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Steup W H, De Leyn P, Deneffe G. et al . Tumors of the esophagogastric junction. Long-term survival in relation to the pattern of lymph node metastasis and a critical analysis of the accuracy or inaccuracy of pTNM classification.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;  111 85-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bollschweiler E, Baldus S E, Schroder W. et al . Staging of esophageal carcinoma: length of tumor and number of involved regional lymph nodes. Are these independent prognostic factors?.  J Surg Oncol. 2006;  94 355-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kutup A, Link B C, Schurr P G. et al . Quality control of endoscopic ultrasound in preoperative staging of esophageal cancer.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 715-719
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kato H, Kuwano H, Nakajima M. et al . Comparison between positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the use of the assessment of esophageal carcinoma.  Cancer. 2002;  94 921-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Bos R, van Der Hoeven J J, van der Wall E. et al . Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;  20 379-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Westerterp M, Sloof G W, Hoekstra O S. et al . 18FDG uptake in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: linking biology and outcome.  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;  134 227-236 Epub 2007 Jul 25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Soret M, Bacharach S L, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging.  J Nucl Med. 2007;  48 932-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

J. M. T. Omloo, MD 

Department of Surgery
Academic Medical Centre/University of Amsterdam

Meibergdreef 9
1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Fax: +31-20-6914858

Email: j.m.omloo@amc.uva.nl

      >