nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

01.08.2013 | Original Article

Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM) IN ¹⁸F-FDG PET assessment of treatment response in colorectal liver metastases

verfasst von: Jeroen Mertens, S. De Bruyne, N. Van Damme, P. Smeets, W. Ceelen, R. Troisi, S. Laurent, K. Geboes, M. Peeters, I. Goethals, C. Van de Wiele

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 8/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM) is a PET parameter for assessing the total metabolic load of malignant processes, avoiding partial volume effects and lesion segmentation. The potential role of this parameter in the assessment of response to chemotherapy and bevacizumab was tested in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with potentially resectable liver metastases (mCRC).

Methods

¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 18 mCRC patients with liver metastases before treatment and after five cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Of the 18 patients, 16 subsequently underwent resection of liver metastases. Baseline and follow-up SUV_max, and SAM as well as reduction in SUV_max (∆SUV_max) and SAM (∆SAM) of all liver metastases were correlated with morphological response, and progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS).

Results

A significant reduction in metabolic activity of the liver metastases was seen after chemotherapy with a median ∆SUV_max of 25.3 % and ∆SAM of 94.5 % (p = 0.033 and 0.003). Median baseline SUV_max and SAM values were significantly different between morphological responders and nonresponders (3.8 vs. 7.2, p = 0.021; and 34 vs. 211, p = 0.002, respectively), but neither baseline PET parameters nor morphological response was correlated with PFS or OS. Follow-up SUV_max and SAM as well as ∆SAM were found to be prognostic factors. The median PFS and OS in the patient group with a high follow-up SUV_max were 10.4 months and 32 months, compared to a median PFS of 14.7 months and a median OS which had not been reached in the group with a low follow-up SUV_max (p = 0.01 and 0.003, respectively). The patient group with a high follow-up SAM and a low ∆SAM had a median PFS and OS of 9.4 months and 32 months, whereas the other group had a median PFS of 14.7 months and a median OS which had not been reached (p = 0.002 for both PFS and OS).

Conclusion

¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging is a useful tool to assess treatment response and predict clinical outcome in patients with mCRC who undergo chemotherapy before liver metastasectomy. Follow-up SUV_max, follow-up SAM and ∆SAM were found to be significant prognostic factors for PFS and OS.

Scheele J, Stangl R, Altendorf-Hofmann A. Hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: impact of surgical resection on the natural history. Br J Surg. 1990;77:1241–6.PubMedCrossRef

Morris EJ, Forman D, Thomas JD, Quirke P, Taylor EF, Fairley L, et al. Surgical management and outcomes of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1110–8. doi:10.1002/bjs.7032.PubMedCrossRef

Simmonds PC, Primrose JN, Colquitt JL, Garden OJ, Poston GJ, Rees M. Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:982–99. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603033.PubMedCrossRef

Wei AC, Greig PD, Grant D, Taylor B, Langer B, Gallinger S. Survival after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:668–76. doi:10.1245/ASO.2006.05.039.PubMedCrossRef

Cummings LC, Payes JD, Cooper GS. Survival after hepatic resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Cancer. 2007;109:718–26. doi:10.1002/cncr.22448.PubMedCrossRef

Nordlinger B, Van Cutsem E, Rougier P, Kohne CH, Ychou M, Sobrero A, et al. Does chemotherapy prior to liver resection increase the potential for cure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? A report from the European Colorectal Metastases Treatment Group. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2037–45. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.017.PubMedCrossRef

Chaudhury P, Hassanain M, Bouganim N, Salman A, Kavan P, Metrakos P. Perioperative chemotherapy with bevacizumab and liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12:37–42. doi:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00119.x.CrossRef

Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335–42. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032691.PubMedCrossRef

Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I, Folprecht G, Nowacki MP, Cascinu S, et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2011–9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.5091.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Shih T, Lindley C. Bevacizumab: an angiogenesis inhibitor for the treatment of solid malignancies. Clin Ther. 2006;28:1779–802. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.11.015.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Edwards MS, Chadda SD, Zhao Z, Barber BL, Sykes DP. A systematic review of treatment guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e31–47. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02765.x.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Klinger M, Eipeldauer S, Hacker S, Herberger B, Tamandl D, Dorfmeister M, et al. Bevacizumab protects against sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and does not increase response rate in neoadjuvant XELOX/FOLFOX therapy of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:515–20. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008.12.013.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Desar IM, van Herpen CM, van Laarhoven HW, Barentsz JO, Oyen WJ, van der Graaf WT. Beyond RECIST: molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35:309–21. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.12.001.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Sharma MR, Maitland ML, Ratain MJ. RECIST: no longer the sharpest tool in the oncology clinical trials toolbox – point. Cancer Res. 2012;72:5145–9. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-0058.PubMedCrossRef

16.

de Langen AJ, van den Boogaart V, Lubberink M, Backes WH, Marcus JT, van Tinteren H, et al. Monitoring response to antiangiogenic therapy in non-small cell lung cancer using imaging markers derived from PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:48–55. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.078261.PubMedCrossRef

17.

de Geus-Oei LF, Vriens D, van Laarhoven HW, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:43S–54S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057224.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Vriens D, van Laarhoven HW, van Asten JJ, Krabbe PF, Visser EP, Heerschap A, et al. Chemotherapy response monitoring of colorectal liver metastases by dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters and 18F-FDG PET metabolic rate. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1777–84. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.064790.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hendlisz A, Golfinopoulos V, Garcia C, Covas A, Emonts P, Ameye L, et al. Serial FDG-PET/CT for early outcome prediction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1687–93. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr554.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C. The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1670–2. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2239-0.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.PubMed

23.

Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Mertens J, Dobbeleir A, Ham H, D’Asseler Y, Goethals I, Van de Wiele C. Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM): a partial volume independent marker of total lesion glycolysis in liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1441–8. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2166-0.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Fleming JS, Tossici-Bolt L, Guy M, Kemp P. Comment on Mertens et al.: standardized added metabolic activity (SAM): a partial volume independent marker of total lesion glycolysis in liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:788–9. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2364-4.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Fleming JS, Bolt L, Stratford JS, Kemp PM. The specific uptake size index for quantifying radiopharmaceutical uptake. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:N227–34.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, Schwartz LH, Rubinstein L, Lacombe D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:248–60.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Heijmen L, de Geus-Oei LF, de Wilt JH, Visvikis D, Hatt M, Visser EP, et al. Reproducibility of functional volume and activity concentration in 18F-FDG PET/CT of liver metastases in colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1858–67. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2233-6.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Bystrom P, Berglund A, Garske U, Jacobsson H, Sundin A, Nygren P, et al. Early prediction of response to first-line chemotherapy by sequential [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1057–61. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn744.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Riedl CC, Akhurst T, Larson S, Stanziale SF, Tuorto S, Bhargava A, et al. 18F-FDG PET scanning correlates with tissue markers of poor prognosis and predicts mortality for patients after liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:771–5. doi:10.2967/jnumed.106.037291.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;43:189–204.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Burger C, Ruhl A, Irngartinger G, Stremmel W, et al. Prognostic aspects of 18F-FDG PET kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1480–7.PubMed

33.

de Geus-Oei LF, van Laarhoven HW, Visser EP, Hermsen R, van Hoorn BA, Kamm YJ, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:348–52.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Rudi J. PET-FDG as predictor of therapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Q J Nucl Med. 2003;47:8–13.PubMed

35.

Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med. 2007;48 Suppl 1:36S–44S.PubMed

36.

Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:663–72. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1688-6.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM) IN 18F-FDG PET assessment of treatment response in colorectal liver metastases
verfasst von: Jeroen Mertens
S. De Bruyne
N. Van Damme
P. Smeets
W. Ceelen
R. Troisi
S. Laurent
K. Geboes
M. Peeters
I. Goethals
C. Van de Wiele
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2013
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 8/2013
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2421-z

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2013

MicroPET/CT imaging of αvβ3 integrin via a novel 68Ga-NOTA-RGD peptidomimetic conjugate in rat myocardial infarction

Radiolabelled somatostatin analogue treatment in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: factors associated with response and suggestions for therapeutic sequence

Critical considerations on the combined use of 18F-FDG and 18F-fluoride for PET assessment of metastatic bone disease

Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorothymidine PET/CT for primary colorectal cancer and its lymph node metastasis: comparison with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT

Imperial college PET/CT course

Predictive variables for hard cardiac events and coronary revascularization in patients with normal left ventricular myocardial perfusion and systolic function