Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2/2013

Open Access 01-01-2013 | Original Article

Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy

Authors: Jacques-Antoine Maisonobe, Camilo A. Garcia, Hatem Necib, Bruno Vanderlinden, Alain Hendlisz, Patrick Flamen, Irène Buvat

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the performance of eight metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with chemotherapy.

Methods

Forty patients with advanced mCRC underwent two FDG PET/CT scans, at baseline and on day 14 after chemotherapy initiation. For each lesion, eight metabolic indices were calculated: four standardized uptake values (SUV) without correction for the partial volume effect (PVE), two SUV with correction for PVE, a metabolic volume (MV) and a total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The relative change in each index between the two scans was calculated for each lesion. Lesions were also classified as responding and nonresponding lesions using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.0 measured by contrast-enhanced CT at baseline and 6–8 weeks after starting therapy. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to compare the various indices. Based on the RECIST classification, ROC analyses were used to determine how accurately the indices predicted lesion response to therapy later seen with RECIST.

Results

RECIST showed 27 responding and 74 nonresponding lesions. Bland-Altman analyses showed that the four SUV indices uncorrected for PVE could not be used interchangeably, nor could the two SUV corrected for PVE. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were not significantly different between the SUV indices not corrected for PVE. The mean SUV change in a lesion better predicted lesion response without than with PVE correction. The AUC was significantly higher for SUV uncorrected for PVE than for the MV, but change in MV provided some information regarding the lesion response to therapy (AUC >0.5).

Conclusion

In these mCRC patients, all SUV uncorrected for PVE accurately predicted the tumour response on day 14 after starting therapy as assessed 4 to 6 weeks later (i.e. 6 to 8 weeks after therapy initiation) using the RECIST criteria. Neither correcting SUV for PVE nor measuring TLG improved the assessment of tumour response compared to SUV uncorrected for PVE. The change in MV was the least accurate index for predicting tumour response.
Literature
1.
Ben-Haim S, Ell P. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:88–99.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496–507.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med. 2007;48 Suppl 1:36S–44S.PubMed
4.
Kumar A, Kumar R, Seenu V, Gupta SD, Chawla M, Malhotra A, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1347–57.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumours. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Buckler AJ, Boellaard R. Standardization of quantitative imaging: the time is right, and 18F-FDG PET/CT is a good place to start. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:171–2.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. Tumour treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumour glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:303–10.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Tylski P, Stute S, Grotus N, Doyeux K, Hapdey S, Gardin I, et al. Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumour volume and standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:268–76.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, Frings V, de Langen AJ, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumour delineation methods: a test-retest assessment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1550–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumour volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1368–76.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Buvat I, Necib H, Garcia C, Wagner A, Vanderlinden B, Emonts P, et al. Lesion-based detection of early chemosensitivity using serial static FDG PET-CT in metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1628–34.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Cheebsumon P, Velasquez LM, Hoekstra CJ, Hayes W, Kloet RW, Hoetjes NJ, et al. Measuring response to therapy using FDG PET: semi-quantitative and full kinetic analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:832–42.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Chen HJ, Dry S, Phelps ME, et al. Combined assessment of metabolic and volumetric changes for assessment of tumour response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1579–84.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cazaentre T, Morschhauser F, Vermandel M, Betrouni N, Prangère T, Steinling M, et al. Pre-therapy 18F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:494–504.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Hoekstra CJ, Krak NC, Lammertsma AA, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679–87.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Gallivanone F, Stefano A, Grosso E, Canevari C, Gianolli L, Messa C, et al. PVE correction in PET-CT whole-body oncological studies from PVE-affected images. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58:736–47.CrossRef
19.
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumour imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Brix G, Doll J, Bellemann ME, Trojan H, Haberkorn U, Schmidlin P, et al. Use of scanner characteristics in iterative image reconstruction for high-resolution positron emission tomography studies of small animals. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24:779–86.PubMed
21.
Reader AJ, Julyan PJ, Williams H, Hastings DL, Zweit J. EM algorithm system modeling by image-space techniques for PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:1392–7.CrossRef
22.
Teo BK, Seo Y, Bacharach SL, Carrasquillo JA, Libutti SK, Shukla H, et al. Partial-volume correction in PET: validation of an iterative postreconstruction method with phantom and patient data. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:802–10.PubMed
23.
Kessler RM, Ellis JR, Eden M. Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984;8:514–22.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zito F, Gilardi MC, Magnani P, Fazio F. Single-photon emission tomographic quantification in spherical objects: effects of object size and background. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:263–71.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Hendlisz A, Golfinopoulos V, Garcia C, Covas A, Emonts P, Ameye L, et al. Serial FDG-PET/CT for early outcome prediction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1687–93.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumours. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601–9.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Bailey DL, Meikle SR. A convolution-subtraction scatter correction method for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:411–24.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Sebastian-Welsch C, Hellwig D, Rübe C, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1342–8.PubMed
30.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRef
31.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.PubMed
32.
Siegel S, Castellan N. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.
33.
Boussion N, Le Cheze RC, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1064–75.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Thomas BA, Erlandsson K, Modat M, Thurfjell L, Vandenberghe R, Ourselin S, et al. The importance of appropriate partial volume correction for PET quantification in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1104–19.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Lucy LB. An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions. Astron J. 1974;79:745–54.CrossRef
36.
Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1012–6.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zaidi H, El NI. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2165–87.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, et al. Intratumour heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:369–78.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy
Authors
Jacques-Antoine Maisonobe
Camilo A. Garcia
Hatem Necib
Bruno Vanderlinden
Alain Hendlisz
Patrick Flamen
Irène Buvat
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2274-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2/2013 Go to the issue

Original Article

Feasibility of perfusion CT technique integrated into conventional 18FDG/PET-CT studies in lung cancer patients: clinical staging and functional information in a single study

Society Communications

10th International Congress of the Asia Oceania Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology, Tehran (Iran), May 2012

Original Article

Improved mapping and quantification of serotonin transporter availability in the human brainstem with the HRRT

Short Communication

Human biodistribution and dosimetry of 18F-JNJ42259152, a radioligand for phosphodiesterase 10A imaging

Original Article

In vivo characterization of 68Ga-NOTA-VEGF121 for the imaging of VEGF receptor expression in U87MG tumor xenograft models

Original Article

11C-Choline PET/CT in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer showing biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy