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 1/2014

01-01-2014 | Original Article

Volume-based assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

Authors: Seung Hyup Hyun, Hee Kyung Ahn, Hojoong Kim, Myung-Ju Ahn, Keunchil Park, Yong Chan Ahn, Jhingook Kim, Young Mog Shim, Joon Young Choi

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluated the prognostic impact of volume-based assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We reviewed 194 consecutive patients with stage IIIA NSCLC treated with surgical resection (surgical group) and 115 patients treated with nonsurgical therapy (nonsurgical group: 50 stage IIIA, 65 stage IIIB). Metabolic tumour volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of primary tumours were measured using pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT. Overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The prognostic significance of PET parameters and other clinical variables was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. To evaluate and compare the predictive performance of PET parameters, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used.

Results

In the Cox proportional hazards models, MTV (HR = 1.27 for a doubling of MTV, P = 0.008) and TLG (HR = 1.22 for a doubling of TLG, P = 0.035) were significantly associated with an increased risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, histological cell type, T stage, N stage, and treatment variables in the surgical group. SUVmax was not a significant prognostic factor in either the surgical or nonsurgical group. In the time-dependent ROC curve analysis, volume-based PET parameters predicted survival better than SUVmax.

Conclusion

The volume-based PET parameters (MTV and TLG) are significant prognostic factors for survival independent of tumour stage and better prognostic imaging biomarkers than SUVmax in patients with stage IIIA NSCLC after surgical resection.
Literature
1.
Andre F, Grunenwald D, Pignon JP, Dujon A, Pujol JL, Brichon PY, et al. Survival of patients with resected N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: evidence for a subclassification and implications. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2981–9.PubMed
2.
Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, Rami-Porta R, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:706–14.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Ettinger DS, Akerley W, Bepler G, Blum MG, Chang A, Cheney RT, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8:740–801.PubMed
4.
Lim E, Baldwin D, Beckles M, Duffy J, Entwisle J, Faivre-Finn C, et al. Guidelines on the radical management of patients with lung cancer. Thorax. 2010;65 Suppl 3:iii1–27.PubMedCrossRef
5.
De Leyn P, Lardinois D, Van Schil PE, Rami-Porta R, Passlick B, Zielinski M, et al. ESTS guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging for non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;32:1–8.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Stroobants SG, D’Hoore I, Dooms C, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, De Wever W, et al. Additional value of whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of distant metastases of non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2003;4:242–7.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Dusart M, Garcia C, Hossein-Foucher C, Lafitte JJ, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:612–9.PubMed
8.
Hoang JK, Hoagland LF, Coleman RE, Coan AD, Herndon 2nd JE, Patz Jr EF. Prognostic value of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1459–64.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Vesselle H, Freeman JD, Wiens L, Stern J, Nguyen HQ, Hawes SE, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of primary non-small cell lung cancer at positron emission tomography: new contrary data on prognostic role. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3255–63.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF. Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2012;264:559–66.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Chung MK, Jeong HS, Park SG, Jang JY, Son YI, Choi JY, et al. Metabolic tumor volume of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts short-term outcome to radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in pharyngeal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5861–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hyun SH, Choi JY, Kim K, Kim J, Shim YM, Um SW, et al. Volume-based parameters of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography improve outcome prediction in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2013;257:364–70.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Hyun SH, Choi JY, Shim YM, Kim K, Lee SJ, Cho YS, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:115–22.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Kim J, Yoo SW, Kang S, Cho S, Oh J, Chong A, et al. Prognostic significance of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT in operable primary breast cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:278–85.CrossRef
15.
Lee HY, Hyun SH, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim J, Shim YM, et al. Volume-based parameter of 18F-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2787–94.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Yoo J, Choi JY, Lee KT, Heo JS, Park SB, Moon SH, et al. Prognostic significance of volume-based metabolic parameters by 18F-FDG PET/CT in gallbladder carcinoma. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:201–6.CrossRef
17.
Rami-Porta R, Crowley JJ, Goldstraw P. The revised TNM staging system for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;15:4–9.PubMed
18.
Lausen B, Schumacher M. Maximally selected rank statistics. Biometrics. 1992;48:73–85.CrossRef
19.
Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Sotiriou C, Bontempi G. A comparative study of survival models for breast cancer prognostication based on microarray data: does a single gene beat them all? Bioinformatics. 2008;24:2200–8.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics. 2000;56:337–44.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255–68.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. Survival of patients with unsuspected N2 (stage IIIA) nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:362–6; discussion 6–7.
23.
Decaluwe H, De Leyn P, Vansteenkiste J, Dooms C, Van Raemdonck D, Nafteux P, et al. Surgical multimodality treatment for baseline resectable stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer. Degree of mediastinal lymph node involvement and impact on survival. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;36:433–9.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:419–24.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Sorensen AG, Patel S, Harmath C, Bridges S, Synnott J, Sievers A, et al. Comparison of diameter and perimeter methods for tumor volume calculation. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:551–7.PubMed
27.
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
28.
Keyes Jr JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836–9.PubMed
29.
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:392–404.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.PubMed
32.
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2320–33.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–95.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Volume-based assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer
Authors
Seung Hyup Hyun
Hee Kyung Ahn
Hojoong Kim
Myung-Ju Ahn
Keunchil Park
Yong Chan Ahn
Jhingook Kim
Young Mog Shim
Joon Young Choi
Publication date
01-01-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2530-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 1/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

11C-Acetate as a new biomarker for PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma: initial staging and postinduction response assessment

Book Review

Heinrich Iro, Alessandro Bozzato and Johannes Zenk (Eds): Atlas of Head and Neck Ultrasound

Obituary

Prof. Ajit Padhy MBBS, MNAMS, FAMS

Letter to the Editor

Comment on Campana et al.: Radiolabelled somatostatin analogue treatment in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: factors associated with response and suggestions for therapeutic sequence

Original Article

Preclinical evaluation of BAY 1075553, a novel 18F-labelled inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen for PET imaging of prostate cancer

Original Article

Whole-body SPECT/CT for bone scintigraphy: diagnostic value and effect on patient management in oncological patients