Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of tumor response by FDG-PET: comparison of the accuracy of single and sequential studies in patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction

  • Original article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Positron-emission-tomography with the glucose analog fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) has shown encouraging results for prediction of tumor response to chemotherapy. However, there is no consensus as to what time after initiation of therapy FDG-PET should be performed. To address this question we studied the time course of changes in tumor FDG-uptake in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) treated with preoperative chemotherapy.

Methods

Twenty-four patients with AEG were included and underwent FDG-PET prior to therapy (PET1), 2 weeks after initiation of therapy (PET2), and preoperatively (PET3). Tumor metabolic activity was assessed by standardized uptake values (SUV) and correlated with histopathologic response and patient survival.

Results

Baseline tumor SUV was 8.3 ± 3.5 and decreased to 5.0 ± 1.8 at PET2 (p  <  0.0001). At PET3 there was further decrease to 3.5 ± 1.9 (p < 0.0001). The relative decrease of tumor FDG-uptake from PET1 to PET2 and from PET1 to PET3 were both significantly correlated with histopathologic response. Reduction of tumor SUV from PET1 to PET2 was significantly correlated with survival (p = 0.03) and there was a similar trend for changes from PET1 to PET3 (p = 0.09). In contrast, absolute SUVs did not demonstrate a significant correlation with histopathological response or patient survival at any of the studied time points.

Conclusion

In patients with AEG, relative changes in tumor FDG uptake are better predictors for treatment outcome than absolute SUVs. Metabolic changes within the first 2 weeks of therapy are at least as efficient for prediction of histopathologic response and patient survival as later changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bosset JF, Gignoux M, Triboulet JP, Emmanuel T, Georges M, Dominique E, et al. Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 1997;337:161–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelsen DP, Ginsberg R, Pajak TF, Sheahan DG, Gunderson L, Mortimer J, et al. Chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for localized esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1979–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Medical Research Council. Surgical resection with or without preoperative chemotherapy in oesophageal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:1727–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Urba SG, Orringer MB, Turrisi A, Iannettoni M, Forastiere A, Strawderman M. Randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:305–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Urschel JD, Vasan H, Blewett CJ. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery to surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer. Am J Surg 2002;183:274–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Urschel JD, Vasan H. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery to surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer. Am J Surg 2003;185:538–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cunningham D, Allum W, Stenning S, Weeden S. Perioerative chemotherpy in operable gastric and lower oesophageal cancer: final results of a randomised, controlled trial (the MAGIC Trial, ISRCTN 93793971). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;abstract 4001.

  8. Law S, Fok M, Chow S, Chu KM, Wong J. Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgical therapy alone for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a prospective randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;114:210–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ancona E, Ruol A, Santi S, Merigliano S, Sileni VC, Koussis H, et al. Only pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves significantly the long term survival of patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: final report of a randomized, controlled trial of preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone. Cancer 2001;91:2165–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Darnton SJ, Archer VR, Stocken DD, Mulholland PJ, Casson AG, Ferry DR. Preoperative mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin followed by esophagectomy in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: pathologic complete response induced by chemotherapy leads to long-term survival. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4009–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Swisher SG, Hofstetter W, Wu TT, Correa AM, Ajani JA, Komaki RR, et al. Proposed revision of the esophageal cancer staging system to accommodate pathologic response (pP) following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT). Ann Surg 2005;241:810–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E, De Wever W, Peeters M, Stroobants S, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3202–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heeren PA, Jager PL, Bongaerts F, van Dullemen H, Sluiter W, Plukker JT. Detection of distant metastases in esophageal cancer with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2004;45:980–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Luketich JD, Schauer PR, Meltzer CC, Landreneau RJ, Urso GK, Townsend DW, et al. Role of positron emission tomography in staging esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;64:765–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, Dittler H-J, Helmberger H, Avril NE, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3058–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, Stahl A, Dittler HJ, Busch R, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4604–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A, Cambier J-T, Haustermans K, Bormans G, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol 2002;13:361–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D, Ginsberg R, Bains MS, Gonen M, et al. Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:428–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wieder HA, Brucher BL, Zimmermann F, Becker K, Lordick F, Beer A, et al. Time course of tumor metabolic activity during chemoradiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:900–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine E, Farmer M, Clark P, Mishra G, Ho C, Geisinger KR, et al. Predictive value of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (F-18-FDG-PET) in the identification of response to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2006;243:472–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Duong CP, Hicks RJ, Weih L, Thompson A, Williams D, Thomas RJS, et al. FDG-PET status following chemoradiotherapy provides high management impact and powerful prognostic stratification in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:770-81.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Siewert J, Feith M, Werner M, Stein H. Results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1,002 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 2000;232:353–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ott K, Dittler H, Helmberger H, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy of high dose 5-FU (HDFU) + folinic acid (HDFA) + biweekly cisplatin without (group A) or with palcitaxel (group B) in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagus. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000;19:(abstract 1122).

  24. Ott K, Weber W, Lordick F, Becker K, Busch R, Herrmann K, et al. Final results of a prospective trial: metabolic imaging predicts response, survival and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4692–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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  Google Scholar 

  26. Becker K, Mueller JD, Schulmacher C, Ott K, Fink U, Busch R, et al. Histomorphology and grading of regression in gastric carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2003;98:1521–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stahl A, Ott K, Schwaiger M, Weber WA. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1471–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Ismaningerstrasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Hinrich A. Wieder, Alexander Stahl, Ken Herrmann, Markus Schwaiger & Wolfgang A. Weber

  2. Department of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany

    Hinrich A. Wieder

  3. Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany

    Katja Ott, Florian Lordick, Ulrich Fink & Jörg Rüdiger Siewert

  4. Department of Medicine III, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany

    Florian Lordick & Karen Becker

  5. Department of Pathology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany

    Karen Becker

  6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitaetsklinikum Freiburg, Albrecht-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Wolfgang A. Weber

Authors
  1. Hinrich A. Wieder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katja Ott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Lordick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexander Stahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ken Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ulrich Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jörg Rüdiger Siewert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Markus Schwaiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Wolfgang A. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hinrich A. Wieder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wieder, H.A., Ott, K., Lordick, F. et al. Prediction of tumor response by FDG-PET: comparison of the accuracy of single and sequential studies in patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34, 1925–1932 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0521-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0521-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation