Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mean and maximum standardized uptake values in [18F]FDG-PET for assessment of histopathological response in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma after radiochemotherapy

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 10 February 2009

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the potential of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for the assessment of histopathological response and survival after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Patients and methods

In 2005 and 2006, 55 patients (43 men, 12 women; median age 60 years) with locally advanced oesophageal cancer (cT3-4 Nx M0; 24 with squamous cell carcinoma, 31 with adenocarcinoma) underwent transthoracic en bloc oesophagectomy after completion of treatment with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and radiotherapy ad 36 Gy in a prospective clinical trial. Of the 55 patients, 21 (38%) were classified as histopathological responders (<10% vital residual tumour cells) and 34 (62%) as nonresponders. FDG-PET was performed before (PET 1) and 3–4 weeks after the end (PET 2) of radiochemotherapy with assessment of maximum and average standardized uptake values (SUV) for correlation with histopathological response and survival.

Results

Histopathological responders had a slightly higher baseline SUV than nonresponders (p<0.0001 between PET 1 and PET 2 for responders and nonresponders) and the decrease was more prominent in responders. Except for SUVmax in patients with squamous cell carcinoma neither baseline nor preoperative SUV nor percent SUV reduction correlated significantly with histopathological response. Histopathological responders had a 2-year overall survival of 91 ± 9% and nonresponders a survival of 53 ± 10% (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

Our study does not support recent reports that FDG-PET predicts histopathological response and survival in patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer treated by neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ. Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2241–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ando N, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y, Shinozawa Y, Kitajima M. Improvement in the results of surgical treatment of advanced squamous esophageal carcinoma during 15 consecutive years. Ann Surg 2000;232:225–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Whooley BP, Law S, Murthy SC, Alexandrou A, Wong J. Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 2001;233:338–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Refaely Y, Krasna MJ. Multimodality therapy for esophageal cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2002;82:729–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thomas CR Jr. Current and ongoing progress in the therapy for resectable esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2005;18:211–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. 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 

  9. Bombardieri E. The added value of metabolic imaging with FDG-PET in oesophageal cancer: prognostic role and prediction of response to treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:753–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Skehan SJ, Brown AL, Thompson M, Young JEM, Coates G, Nahmias C. Imaging features of primary and recurrent esophageal cancer at FDG PET. Radiographics 2000;20:713–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, Kelly A, Keeling N, Hennessy TP. A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 1996;335:462–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rouvelas I, Zeng W, Lindblad M, Viklund P, Ye W, Lagergren J. Survival after neoadjuvant therapy compared with surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer in a population-based study. World J Surg 2006;30:2182–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siewert JR, Lordick F, Ott K, Stein HJ, Weber WA, Becker K, et al. Induction chemotherapy in Barrett cancer. Influence on surgical risk and outcome. Ann Surg 2007;246:624–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. Schneider PM, Baldus SE, Metzger R, Kocher M, Bongartz R, Bollschweiler E, et al. Histomorphologic tumor regression and lymph node metastases determine prognosis following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer: implications for response classification. Ann Surg 2005;242:684–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  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. Swisher SG, Erasmus J, Maish M, Correa AM, Macapinlac H, Ajani JA, et al. 2-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging is predictive of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101:1776–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wieder HA, Brücher BLDM, 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 

  21. Duong CP, Hicks RJ, Weih L, Drummond E, Leong T, Michael M, 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;33:770–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F, Becker K, Busch R, Herrmann K, et al. Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagastric junction. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4692–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ, Weber WA, Becker K, Stein HJ, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:797–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wieder HA, Ott K, Lordick F, Becker K, Stahl A, Herrmann K, 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 2007;34:1925–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gillham CM, Lucey JA, Keogan M, Duffy GJ, Malik V, Raouf AA, et al. 18FDG uptake during induction chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer fails to predict histomorphological tumour response. Br J Cancer 2006;95:1174–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Smithers BM, Couper GC, Thomas JM, Wong D, Gotley DC, Martin I, et al. Positron emission tomography and pathological evidence of response to neoadjuvant therapy in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2008;21:151–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schröder W, Bollschweiler E, Kossow C, Hölscher AH. Preoperative risk analysis – a reliable predictor of postoperative outcome after transthoracic esophagectomy? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006;391:455–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hölscher AH, Schröder W, Bollschweiler E, Beckurts KT, Schneider PM. How safe is high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy? Chirurg 2003;74:726–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hölscher AH, Schneider PM, Gutschow C, Schröder W. Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach for esophageal replacement. Ann Surg 2007;245:241–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baldus SE, Mönig SP, Schröder W, Metzger R, Lang S, Zirbes TK, et al. Regression of oesophageal carcinomas after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy: criteria of the histopathological evaluation. Pathologe 2004;25:421–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bollschweiler E. Benefits and limitations of Kaplan-Meier calculations of survival chance in cancer surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2003;388:239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, Van de Velde CJ, Nicolson M, et al.; MAGIC Trial Participants. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:11–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers BM, Foo K, Zalcberg J, Simes J; Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:226–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bollschweiler E, Hölscher AH. Prediction of tumour response by FDG-PET in patients with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagogastric junction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:1742–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RL. In vitro assessment of 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, L-methionine and thymidine as agents to monitor the early response of a human adenocarcinoma cell line to radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 1993;34:773–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Nordén MM, Larsson F, Tedelind S, Carlsson T, Lundh C, Forssell-Aronsson E, et al. Down-regulation of the sodium/iodide symporter explains 131I-induced thyroid stunning. Cancer Res 2007;67:7512–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meller B, Gaspar E, Deisting W, Czarnocka B, Baehre M, Wenzel BE. Decreased radioiodine uptake of FRTL-5 cells after (131)I incubation in vitro: molecular biological investigations indicate a cell cycle-dependent pathway. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:1204–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 2005;46:983–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hawkins RA, Choi Y, Huang SC, Messa C, Hoh CK, Phelps ME. Quantitating tumor glucose metabolism with FDG and PET. J Nucl Med 1992;33:339–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value ? J Nucl Med 1995;36:1836–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007;48:932–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology 1999;213:521–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27:643–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Brink I, Klenzner Th, Krause Th, Mix M, Ross UH, Moser E, et al. Lymph node staging in extracranial head and neck cancer with FDG PET – appropriate uptake period and size-dependence of the results. Nuklearmedizin 2002;41:108–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 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;31:1471–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany

    Matthias Schmidt, Markus Dietlein, Carsten Kobe, Wolfgang Eschner & Harald Schicha

  2. Department of General-, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Elfriede Bollschweiler, Stefan P. Mönig, Daniel Vallboehmer & Arnulf Hölscher

Authors
  1. Matthias Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elfriede Bollschweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Dietlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan P. Mönig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carsten Kobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel Vallboehmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wolfgang Eschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arnulf Hölscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Harald Schicha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Schmidt.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1087-z

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, M., Bollschweiler, E., Dietlein, M. et al. Mean and maximum standardized uptake values in [18F]FDG-PET for assessment of histopathological response in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma after radiochemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36, 735–744 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-1011-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-1011-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation