Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleCLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

18F-FDG PET Is an Early Predictor of Pathologic Tumor Response to Preoperative Radiochemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Giuseppe Lucio Cascini, Antonio Avallone, Paolo Delrio, Cesare Guida, Fabiana Tatangelo, Pietro Marone, Luigi Aloj, Francesco De Martinis, Pasquale Comella, Valerio Parisi and Secondo Lastoria
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2006, 47 (8) 1241-1248;
Giuseppe Lucio Cascini
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Avallone
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paolo Delrio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cesare Guida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fabiana Tatangelo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pietro Marone
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luigi Aloj
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francesco De Martinis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pasquale Comella
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valerio Parisi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Secondo Lastoria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1. 

    Relative reductions of 18F-FDG uptake, measured either by SUV-max (black boxes) or SUV-mean (white boxes), during the study. Boxes represent interquartile distribution. Horizontal bars within boxes are median values. Error bars are 10th and 90th percentiles.

  • FIGURE 2. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2. 

    Early changes of SUV-max (A) and of SUV-mean (B) relative to TRG values.

  • FIGURE 3. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3. 

    Time course of 18F-FDG PET in a nonresponder patient (patient 1). (A) Intense 18F-FDG uptake in baseline study clearly depicts irregular tumor mass. (B) Tumor uptake is roughly unchanged in intermediate study (early SUV change, −15%). (C) In presurgical study, tumor volume is reduced but considerable tumor uptake is still present (late SUV change, −23%). This case was graded TRG4.

  • FIGURE 4. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4. 

    Time course of 18F-FDG PET in a responder patient (patient 31). (A) Intense 18F-FDG uptake is evident on baseline scan in a T2 lesion. (B) Significant decrease of SUV is observed on the intermediate scan. Early SUV change was −62%. (C) Complete tumor disappearance is noted on presurgical scan. Subtotal tumor regression (TRG2) was achieved. Activity in left ureter can be seen on transaxial images. n.m. = not measurable.

  • FIGURE 5. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5. 

    ROC curve analysis for early SUV changes in discriminating responder and nonresponder patients. Cutoff value in SUV-mean (closed circles) change of −52% yields values of 100% in sensitivity and specificity, whereas cutoff value in SUV-max (open boxes) of −42% gives a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 87% (area under curve, 0.95; confidence interval, 95%).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Patient Characteristics, Clinical Staging, Histopathologic Findings, and Tumor 18F-FDG SUV-mean Changes

    Patient no.SexAge (y)cTNMcMRCGRTumor locationpTNMTRGR statusBaselineIntermediateBefore surgeryEarly change (%)Overall change (%)
    1F29T4 N2≤5 mmHigh≤5 cmT4 N04R14.153.542.7414.6933.9
    2F66T3 N0>5 mmInterm.≤5 cmT1 N02R010.64.5NP57.60
    3M69T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high≤5 cmT0 N01R016.24.25NM73.76100.0
    4F57T2 N1>5 mmInterm.≤5 cmT2 N04R04.754.28NM9.89100.0
    5F73T3 N1>5 mmMod. high>5 cmT0 N01R04.061.26NP68.90
    6M60T4 N1≤5 mmHigh≤5 cmT3 N13R14.684.57NP2.35
    7M74T3 N0≤5 mmInterm.>5 cmT0 N01R05.371.89NP64.80
    8M48T3 N1NPMod. high>5 cmT3 N13R08.037.35NP8.46
    9M67T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high>5 cmT0 N01R07.371.91NP74.00
    10M48T3 N2≤5 mmHigh>5 cmT0 N01R04.972.12NM57.34100.0
    11M66T3 N1>5 mmMod. high>5 cmT0 N01R010.033.21NM67.98100.0
    12F40T3 N2>5 mmHigh>5 cmT2 N23R011.79.16.322.2046.2
    13M70T3 N1NPMod. high>5 cmT2 N13R07.193.76NM47.70100.0
    14M53T3 N1>5 mmMod. high>5 cmT2 N03R04.554.032.0111.4255.8
    15F42T3 N1>5 mmMod. high>5 cmT0 N11R09.523.622.0761.9778.3
    16M58T3 N1>5 mmMod. high>5 cmT0 N01R06.72.21NM67.01100.0
    17F30T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high>5 cmT0 N01R09.08NMNP100.00
    18M50T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high≤5 cmT3 N13R03.23.082.173.7532.2
    19F50T3 N0≤5 mmInterm.≤5 cmT2 N03R06.343.942.1137.8566.0
    20F52T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high≤5 cmT2 N02R06.83.022.155.5867.6
    21F64T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high>5 cmT3 N03R07.684.852.5236.8467.1
    22M67T3 N1>5 mmMod. high≤5 cmT3 N03R08.036.23NP22.41
    23M47T3 N2≤5 mmHigh≤5 cmT2 N02R011.234.64NP58.68
    24M53T3 N2≤5 mmHigh≤5 cmT3 N02R08.873.62NP59.18
    25F66T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high>5 cmT3 N03R010.697.55NP29.37
    26F58T3 N1NPMod. high≤5 cmT0 N01R010.543.22NP69.44
    27M69T3 N1≤5 mmMod. high≤5 cmT3 N12R013.755.67NP58.76
    28F65T4 N2≤5 mmHigh>5 cmT3 N13R010.877.19NP33.85
    29M64T3 N0≤5 mmInterm.≤5 cmT2 N03R08.396.19NP26.22
    30M41T4 N0≤5 mmMod. high≤5 cmT2 N03R09.677.21NP25.43
    31M62T2 N1>5 mmInterm.>5 cmT1 N12R06.32.4NM61.90100.0
    32M49T3 N2≤5 mmHigh>5 cmT0 N01R018.585.43NM70.75100.0
    33M36T3 N0≤5 mmInterm.≤5 cmT0 N01R06.322.68NM57.6100.0
    • cTNM = clinical TNM; cCRM = clinical CRM; pTNM = pathologic TNM; R status = resection status; R0 = macroscopically complete resection; R1 = minimal residue resection; GR = Gunderson risk classification (19); Interm = intermediate; Mod. high = moderately high; NM = not measurable; NP = not performed.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Pathologic Response Among Different Clinical Stages

    Clinical TN (n)Pathologic TN (n)TRG (n)
    T2N1 (2)T1N1 (1), T2N0 (1)TRG2 (1), TRG4 (1)
    T3N0 (5)T0N0 (2), T1N0 (1), T2N2 (2)TRG1 (2), TRG2 (1), TRG3 (2)
    T3N1 (17)T0N0 (7), T0N1 (1), T2N0 (2), T2N1 (1), T3N0 (3), T3N1 (3)TRG1 (8), TRG2 (2), TRG3 (7)
    T3N2 (5)T0N0 (2), T2N0 (1), T2N2 (1), T3N0 (1)TRG1 (2), TRG2 (2), TRG3 (1)
    T4N0 (1)T2N0TRG3 (1)
    T4N1 (1)T3N1TRG3 (1)
    T4N2 (2)T3N1 (1), T4N0 (1)TRG3 (1), TRG4 (1)
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 47 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 47, Issue 8
August 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
18F-FDG PET Is an Early Predictor of Pathologic Tumor Response to Preoperative Radiochemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
18F-FDG PET Is an Early Predictor of Pathologic Tumor Response to Preoperative Radiochemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Giuseppe Lucio Cascini, Antonio Avallone, Paolo Delrio, Cesare Guida, Fabiana Tatangelo, Pietro Marone, Luigi Aloj, Francesco De Martinis, Pasquale Comella, Valerio Parisi, Secondo Lastoria
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2006, 47 (8) 1241-1248;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
18F-FDG PET Is an Early Predictor of Pathologic Tumor Response to Preoperative Radiochemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Giuseppe Lucio Cascini, Antonio Avallone, Paolo Delrio, Cesare Guida, Fabiana Tatangelo, Pietro Marone, Luigi Aloj, Francesco De Martinis, Pasquale Comella, Valerio Parisi, Secondo Lastoria
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2006, 47 (8) 1241-1248;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Value of 68Ga-FAPI-04 and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Early Prediction of Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer
  • The Emerging Non-operative Management of Non-metastatic Rectal Cancer: A Population Analysis
  • Early PET/CT Scan Is More Effective Than RECIST in Predicting Outcome of Patients with Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer Treated with Preoperative Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab
  • Added Value of Baseline 18F-FDG Uptake in Serial 18F-FDG PET for Evaluation of Response of Solid Extracerebral Tumors to Systemic Cytotoxic Neoadjuvant Treatment: A Meta-Analysis
  • Value of Retrospective Fusion of PET and MR Images in Detection of Hepatic Metastases: Comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced MRI
  • Monitoring and Predicting Response to Therapy with 18F-FDG PET in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
  • 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Cancer Treatment Response
  • Combined Assessment of Metabolic and Volumetric Changes for Assessment of Tumor Response in Patients with Soft-Tissue Sarcomas
  • Treatment Monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Sarcomas: Interobserver Variability of Quantitative Parameters in Treatment-Induced Changes in Histopathologically Responding and Nonresponding Tumors
  • Tumor Cell Metabolism Imaging
  • Organ Preservation for Rectal Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
  • Prognostic Role of 68Ga-PSMA11 PET–Based Response in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Taxane-Based Chemotherapy
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire