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

Prognostic Value of Metabolic Parameters in Patients with Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Following Curative-Intent Colorectal and Hepatic Surgery

Hyo Sang Lee, Hye Ok Kim, Yong Sang Hong, Tae Won Kim, Jin Cheon Kim, Chang Sik Yu and Jae Seung Kim
Journal of Nuclear Medicine April 2014, 55 (4) 582-589; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.128629
Hyo Sang Lee
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hye Ok Kim
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yong Sang Hong
2Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tae Won Kim
2Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jin Cheon Kim
3Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chang Sik Yu
3Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jae Seung Kim
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Flow diagram outlining criteria used for patient inclusion and exclusion.

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

    Kaplan–Meier curves for RFS dichotomized using median cutoff value of PSRFS (A) and for OS dichotomized using 60th-percentile cutoff value of PSOS (B).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Demographics and Clinicopathologic Features of Primary Colorectal Cancers and Liver Metastases

    Characteristicn or mean ± SD
    Age (y)59.9 ± 10.1 (range, 35−80)
    Sex
     Male82 (68%)
     Female38 (32%)
    Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (ng/mL)35.2 ± 99.8 (range, 0.32−812.8)
    Pathologic stage
     T
      T21 (1%)
      T3107 (89%)
      T412 (10%)
     N
      N029 (24%)
      N147 (39%)
      N244 (37%)
    Location of primary tumor
     Colon74 (62%)
     Rectum46 (38%)
    Bilobar hepatic metastasis
     Yes21 (17%)
     No99 (83%)
    Hepatic resection margin
     Positive13 (11%)
     Negative107 (89%)
    Differentiation grade
     Well differentiated4 (3%)
     Moderately differentiated110 (92%)
     Poorly differentiated6 (5%)
    Number of hepatic metastasis
     170 (59%)
     229 (24%)
     310 (8%)
     >311 (9%)
    Size of primary tumor (cm)5.5 ± 1.8 (range, 1.7−11.2)
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)3.5 ± 2.4 (range, 0.4−14.0)
    Adjuvant chemotherapy
     No4 (3%)
     Yes116 (97%)
     Total120 (100%)
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Metabolic Features of Primary Colorectal Cancers and Liver Metastases

    Metabolic parameterMean ± SD
    SUVmean of normal liver1.8 ± 0.3 (1.2−2.9)
    SUVpeak of primary tumor8.7 ± 4.0 (2.1−29.9)
    nSUVpeak of primary tumor5.0 ± 2.3 (1.4−16.9)
    SUVpeak of hepatic metastasis5.4 ± 2.8 (1.8−20.6)
    nSUVpeak of hepatic metastasis3.1 ± 1.6 (0.9−11.6)
    MTV of primary tumor (cm3)20.6 ± 15.3 (3.0−124.7)
    MTV of hepatic metastasis (cm3)32.2 ± 61.9 (0.0−450.4)
    nTLG of primary tumor (cm3)79.5 ± 75.4 (6.0−555.0)
    nTLG of hepatic metastasis (cm3)91.6 ± 182.7 (0.0−1215.6)
    • Data in parentheses are ranges.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Univariate Cox Regression Analysis for Clinicopathologic Risk Factors Associated with Survival

    RFSOS
    VariablenHazard ratio95% CIPHazard ratio95% CIP
    Age (y)1201.0090.987−1.0320.4281.0341.000−1.0690.052
    Sex
     Female38——————
     Male821.4620.885−2.4140.1381.3080.639−2.6770.462
    Size of primary tumor (cm)1201.0340.908−1.1760.6170.9820.826−1.1680.838
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)1201.0880.998−1.1870.0551.1311.016−1.2590.025
    Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (ng/mL)1201.0010.999−1.0030.2981.0020.999−1.0040.179
    T stage
     T2, T3108——————
     T4121.1940.595−2.3960.6171.0190.361−2.8760.972
    N stage
     N029——0.822——0.776
     N1470.8810.494−1.5710.6671.2810.557−2.9470.560
     N2441.0310.578−1.8390.9191.0350.434−2.4710.937
    Positive hepatic resection margin
     No107——————
     Yes131.3150.656−2.6390.4401.5180.637−3.6200.346
    No. of hepatic metastasis1201.2001.009−1.4270.0391.0580.858−1.3040.596
    Bilobar hepatic metastasis
     No99——————
     Yes210.8860.488−1.6090.6910.7350.288−1.8800.521
    Differentiation grade
     Well or moderately differentiated114——————
     Poorly differentiated61.9340.703−5.3240.2025.2341.803−15.1960.002
    Location of primary tumor
     Colon74——————
     Rectum461.2650.803−1.9920.3100.9860.524−1.8570.966
    Adjuvant chemotherapy
     No4——————
     Yes1160.5850.214−1.6050.2980.4140.099−1.7380.228
    Fong’s clinical risk score1201.2250.891−1.6830.2141.3100.850−2.0210.224
    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Univariate Cox Regression Analysis for Metabolic Risk Factors Associated with Survival

    RFSOS
    VariablenHazard ratio95% CIPHazard ratio95% CIP
    nSUVpeak of primary tumor1200.9320.837−1.0380.2020.9840.860−1.1270.820
    nSUVpeak of hepatic metastasis1201.1060.982−1.2450.0971.2091.055−1.3860.006
    M/P ratio of nSUVpeak1202.3511.308−4.2260.0041.8490.891−3.8370.099
    MTV of primary tumor (cm3)1201.0120.996−1.0280.1391.0050.988−1.0210.589
    MTV of hepatic metastasis (cm3)1201.0031.000−1.0060.0681.0031.000−1.0060.058
    M/P ratio of MTV1201.0360.983−1.0920.1841.0510.989−1.1170.108
    nTLG of primary tumor (cm3)1201.0010.997−1.0050.7021.0000.996−1.0040.949
    nTLG of hepatic metastasis (cm3)1201.0011.000−1.0020.0651.0011.000−1.0020.023
    M/P ratio of nTLG1201.0400.989−1.0930.1291.0490.989−1.1120.108
    • View popup
    TABLE 5

    Multivariate Cox Regression Models for RFS

    ModelVariableβHazard ratio95% CIP
    1Sex (male)0.4911.6340.979−2.7260.060
    nSUVpeak of primary tumor−0.1360.8720.763−0.9980.047
    nSUVpeak of hepatic metastasis0.2181.2441.002−1.5430.048
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.0501.0510.937−1.1800.393
    No. of hepatic metastasis0.1691.1840.994−1.4100.058
    2Sex (male)0.5081.6630.997−2.7740.051
    M/P ratio of SUVpeak0.7352.0861.041−4.1800.038
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.0701.0730.967−1.1900.183
    No. of hepatic metastasis0.1851.2041.011−1.4330.037
    3Sex (male)0.4921.6350.979−2.7300.060
    MTV of hepatic metastasis (cm3)0.0001.0000.994−1.0050.887
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.1271.1360.964−1.3380.129
    No. of hepatic metastasis0.2131.2371.040−1.4720.016
    4Sex (male)0.4901.6330.978−2.7260.061
    nTLG of hepatic metastasis (cm3)0.0001.0000.998−1.0020.937
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.1231.1310.955−1.3380.153
    No. of hepatic metastasis0.2121.2371.039−1.4720.017
    • View popup
    TABLE 6

    Multivariate Cox Regression Models for OS

    ModelVariableβHazard ratio95% CIP
    5Age (y)0.0351.0361.001−1.0730.047
    nSUVpeak of primary tumor−0.1520.8590.717−1.0300.101
    nSUVpeak of hepatic metastasis0.3631.4381.080−1.9160.013
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.0321.0330.895−1.1910.660
    Differentiation grade (poor)1.3443.8361.255−11.7240.018
    6Age (y)0.0321.0320.997−1.0690.070
    M/P ratio of SUVpeak0.2331.2630.497−3.2070.624
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.1121.1180.986−1.2690.082
    Differentiation grade (poor)1.5464.6941.515−14.5150.007
    7Age (y)0.0311.0310.997−1.0670.077
    MTV of hepatic metastasis (cm3)0.0001.0000.993−1.0070.914
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.1381.1480.915−1.4400.234
    Differentiation grade (poor)1.6355.1271.756−14.9750.003
    8Age (y)0.0311.0310.997−1.0670.077
    nTLG of hepatic metastasis (cm3)0.0011.0010.998−1.0030.643
    Size of hepatic metastasis (cm)0.0781.0810.854−1.3680.516
    Differentiation grade (poor)1.6515.2141.783−15.2480.003

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 55 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 55, Issue 4
April 1, 2014
  • 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.
Prognostic Value of Metabolic Parameters in Patients with Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Following Curative-Intent Colorectal and Hepatic Surgery
(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
Prognostic Value of Metabolic Parameters in Patients with Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Following Curative-Intent Colorectal and Hepatic Surgery
Hyo Sang Lee, Hye Ok Kim, Yong Sang Hong, Tae Won Kim, Jin Cheon Kim, Chang Sik Yu, Jae Seung Kim
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2014, 55 (4) 582-589; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.128629

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prognostic Value of Metabolic Parameters in Patients with Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Following Curative-Intent Colorectal and Hepatic Surgery
Hyo Sang Lee, Hye Ok Kim, Yong Sang Hong, Tae Won Kim, Jin Cheon Kim, Chang Sik Yu, Jae Seung Kim
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2014, 55 (4) 582-589; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.128629
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
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • 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
  • Left Ventricular Strain from Myocardial Perfusion PET Imaging: Method Development and Comparison to 2-Dimensional Echocardiography
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • synchronous colorectal liver metastasis
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT
  • prognosis
  • prognostic score
  • prognostic model
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire