Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Five-point qualitative posttherapy assessment scoring system (Hopkins criteria) for lung cancer.
- FIGURE 2.
Added value of PET/CT to clinical assessment. PET/CT was helpful in excluding tumors in 14.7% (10/68) of scans ordered with clinical or imaging suspicion of recurrence and identifying recurrence in 64.7% (86/133) of scans ordered with no prior clinical or imaging suspicion.
- FIGURE 3.
Kaplan–Meier survival plot by PET/CT 5-point interpretation criteria. (A) OS (mo) between patients who were categorized as positive (red line) and negative (blue line) differed significantly (n = 201; log-rank, P < 0.001; HR = 2.12 [95% CI = 1.44–3.12]). (B) OS (mo) differed significantly between patients who were scored as 4 or 5 (red line) versus 3 (gray line) versus 1 or 2 (blue line) by 5-point posttherapy interpretation criteria (log-rank, P < 0.001).
- FIGURE 4.
Kaplan–Meier survival plot by PET/CT result and tumor histology. OS (mo) between patients who were PET-positive (red line) and PET-negative (blue line) was significantly different between patients with small cell lung cancer (n = 34; log-rank, P = 0.022; HR = 2.88 [95% CI = 1.12–7.39]) (A) and those with non–small cell lung cancer (n = 167; log-rank, P = 0.001; HR = 2.01 [95% CI = 1.31–3.07]) (B).
- FIGURE 5.
Kaplan–Meier survival plot by PET/CT result and treatment. OS (mo) between patients who were PET-positive (red line) and PET-negative (blue line) were significantly different between patients who were treated with surgical resection as part of primary intervention (n = 41; log-rank, P < 0.001; HR = 6.09 [95% CI = 2.02–18.33]) (A) and those who did not have surgical resection as part of primary intervention (n = 160; log-rank, P = 0.025; HR = 1.60 [95% CI = 1.06–2.43]) (B).
Tables
Characteristic n % Age (y) 40 4 2.0% 41–60 83 41.3% >60 114 56.7% Sex Female 85 42.3% Male 116 57.7% Race White 142 70.6% Black 38 18.9% Other 21 10.5% Histology SCLC 34 16.9% NSCLC 167 83.1% History of smoking (+) 156 77.6% Stage I 23 11.4% II 16 8.0% III 67 33.3% IV 78 38.8% Unknown 17 8.5% Surgery 7 3.5% Chemotherapy 52 25.9% Radiation Therapy 11 5.5% Surgery + chemoradiation 18 9.0% Chemoradiation 97 48.3% Surgery + chemotherapy 16 8.0% Interval between treatment and PET study (wk) 1–8 129 64.2% 8–12 18 9.0% 12–24 54 26.9% PET/CT results Negative 57 28.4% Positive 144 71.6% Outcome (dead) 137 68.2% - TABLE 2
Diagnostic Accuracy Estimation of 5-Point Qualitative Posttherapy Assessment Scoring System (Hopkins Criteria) for Lung Cancer Follow-up
PET/CT Disease-positive Disease-negative Total Positive 129 10 139 Negative 16 40 56 Total 145 50 195 Overall survival Analysis HR P Univariate Positive Hopkins criteria 2.12 (1.44–3.11) <0.001 Age 1.00 (0.99–1.02) 0.40 Sex 1.11 (0.79–1.56) 0.53 Race 0.80 (0.61–1.04) 0.09 Smoking 0.89 (0.57–1.40) 0.63 Time interval between treatment and PET study 1.02 (0.99–1.04) 0.17 Prior clinical suspicion 1.44 (1.01–2.04) 0.04 Disease stage 1.17 (1.01–1.35) 0.04 Treatment 1.57 (1.01–2.44) 0.05 Tumor histology 0.70 (0.45–1.07) 0.09 Multivariate* Positive Hopkins criteria 1.86 (1.25–2.78) 0.002 ↵* After adjustment for disease stage, prior clinical suspicion, and primary treatment modality.
Data in parentheses are 95% CIs.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- RESISTing the Need to Quantify: Putting Qualitative FDG-PET/CT Tumor Response Assessment Criteria into Daily Practice
- What 18F-FDG PET Response-Assessment Method Best Predicts Survival After Curative-Intent Chemoradiation in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: EORTC, PERCIST, Peter Mac Criteria, or Deauville Criteria?
- Clinical Indications and Impact on Management: Fourth and Subsequent Posttherapy Follow-up 18F-FDG PET/CT Scans in Oncology Patients