Abstract
Purpose
We retrospectively evaluated the ability of FDG PET to predict the response of primary tumor to chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecological cancer.
Methods
FDG PET examinations were performed before and after completion of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in 21 patients with advanced gynecological cancer (uterine cancer, n = 13; ovarian cancer, n = 8). PET imaging was performed at 1 h after injection. Semi-quantitative analysis was performed using the standardized uptake value (SUV) at the primary tumor for both before and after therapy (SUVbefore and SUVafter, respectively). Percent change value was calculated according to the following equation: \( {{\left( {SUV_{{{\text{before}}}} - SUV_{{{\text{after}}}} } \right)} \times 100} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\left( {SUV_{{{\text{before}}}} - SUV_{{{\text{after}}}} } \right)} \times 100} {SUV_{{{\text{before}}}} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {SUV_{{{\text{before}}}} } \). Based on histopathological analysis of the specimens obtained at surgery, patients were classified as responders or non-responders.
Results
Ten patients were found to be responders and 11 to be non-responders. SUVafter in responders was significantly lower than that in non-responders (p < 0.005). Taking an arbitrary SUVafter of 3.8 as the cutoff for differentiating between responders and non-responders, FDG PET showed a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 63.6%, and an accuracy of 76.2%. The percent change value in the responders was significantly higher than that in the non-responders (p < 0.0005). Taking an arbitrary percent change of 65 as the cutoff for differentiating between responders and non-responders, FDG PET showed a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 81.8%, and an accuracy of 85.7%.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that FDG PET-derived parameters including SUV and especially percent change value may have the potential to predict response to chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced gynecological cancer.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen D, Narayan K. Managing advanced stage cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005;19:591–609.
Mariagrazia D, Anna F, Gabriella F, Francesco F, Daniela S, Giuseppe D, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: Long-term outcome and complications. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99:S166–70.
Beneditti-Panici P, Greggi S, Scambia G, Amoroso M, Salerno MG, Maneschi F, et al. Long-term survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:341–6.
Schwartz PE, Rutherfold TJ, Chambers JT, Kohorn EI, Thiel RP. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: Long-term survival. Gynecol Oncol 1999;72:93–9.
Ansquer Y, Leblanc E, Clough K, Morice P, Dauplat J, Mathevet P, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable ovarian carcinoma: a French multicenter study. Cancer 2001;91:2329–34.
Park TW, Kuhn WC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2004;4:639–47.
Jurado M, Martinez-Monge R, Azinovic I, Lopez-Garcia G, Aristu J. Preoperative chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer: pathologic response and a prognostic factor (abstr). Gynecol Oncol 1997;64:359.
Chan YM, Ng TY, Ngan HYS, Wong LC. Quality of life in women with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Oncol 2003;88:9–16.
Yen TC, Lai CH. Positron emission tomography in gynecological cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2006;36:93–104.
Westerterp M, van Westreenen HL, Reitsma JB, Hoekstra OS, Stoker J, Fockens P, et al. Esophageal cancer: CT, endoscopic US, and FDG PET for assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy-systemic review. Radiology 2005;236:841–51.
Kalff V, Duong C, Drummond EG, Matthews JP, Hicks RJ. Findings of 18F-FDG PET scans after neoadjuvant chemoradiation provides prognostic stratification in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma subsequently treated by radical surgery. J Nucl Med 2006;47:14–22.
Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Monden T, Sasakawa Y, Ohkawa M, Gotoh M, et al. Correlation of FDG-PET findings with histopathology in the assessment of response to induction chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:140–7.
Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, Yagihara A, Tsuchida T, Okazawa H, et al. Metabolic monitoring of advanced uterine cervical cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy by using [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: preliminary results in three patients. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95:597–602.
Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Posttherapy [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in carcinoma of the cervix: response and outcome. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2167–71.
Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, Naehrig J, Rutke S, Weber WA, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7445–53.
International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Classification and staging of malignant tumors in the female pelvis: annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1989;28:189–92.
Toorongian SA, Mulholland GK, Jewett DM, Bachelor MA, Kilbourn MR. Routine production of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose by direct nucleophilic exchange on a quaternary 4-aminopyridinium resin. Nucl Med Biol 1990;17:273–9.
Pauwels EK, McCready VR, Stoot JH, van Deurzen DF. The mechanism of accumulation of tumor-localizing pharamaceuticals. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:277–305.
Oya N, Nagata Y, Tamaki N, Takagi T, Murata R, Magata Y, et al. FDG-PET evaluation of therapeutic effects on VX2 liver tumor. J Nucl Med 1996;37:296–302.
Nakamoto Y, Eisbruch A, Achtyes ED, Sugawara Y, Reynolds KR, Johnston CM, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 2002;84:289–95.
Xue F, Lin LL, Dehdashti F, Miller TR, Siegel BA, Grigsby PW. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in primary cervical cancer as an indicator of prognosis after radiation therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2006;101:147–51.
Reinhardt MJ, Kubota K, Yamada S, Iwata R, Yaegashi H. Assessment of cancer recurrence in residual tumors after fractionated radiotherapy: a comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose, l-methionine and thymidine. J Nucl Med 1997;38:280–7.
Haberkorn U, Strauss LG, Dimitrakopoupou A, Engenhart R, Oberdorfer F, Ostertag H, et al. PET studies of fluorodeoxyglucose metabolism in patients with recurrent colorectal tumors receiving radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1485–90.
Kim S, Chung JK, Kang SB, Kim MH, Jeong JM, Lee DS, et al. [18F] FDG PET as a substitute for second-look laparotomy in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:196–201.
Baum RP, Przetak C. Evaluation of therapy response in breast and ovarian cancer patients by positron emission tomography (PET). Q J Nucl Med 2001;45:257–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nishiyama, Y., Yamamoto, Y., Kanenishi, K. et al. Monitoring the neoadjuvant therapy response in gynecological cancer patients using FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35, 287–295 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0627-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0627-7