Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-02-2018 | Original Article

The prognostic value of ¹⁸F–FDG PET/CT prior to liver transplantation for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases

Authors: Harald Grut, Svein Dueland, Pål Dag Line, Mona Elisabeth Revheim

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

Purpose

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of volumetric and metabolic information derivied from F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (¹⁸F–FDG PET) in combination with computed tomography (CT) prior to liver transplantation (LT) in patients with nonresectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Due to scarcity of liver grafts, prognostic information enabling selection of candidates who will gain the highest survival after LT is of vital importance. ¹⁸F–FDG PET/CT was a part of the preoperative study protocol. Patients without evidence of extrahepatic malignant disease on ¹⁸F–FDG PET/CT who also fulfilled all the other inclusion criteria underwent LT.

Methods

The preoperative ¹⁸F–FDG PET/CT examinations of all patients included in the SECA (secondary cancer) study were retrospectively assessed. Maximum, mean and peak standardized uptake values (SUV_max, SUV_mean and SUV_peak), tumor to background (T/B) ratio, metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured and calculated for all liver metastases. Total MTV and TLG were calculated for each patient. Cut-off values were determined for each of these parameters by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis dividing the patients into two groups. One, three and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) for patients over and under the cut-off value were compared by using the Kaplan–Meier method and log rank test.

Results

Twenty-three patients underwent LT in the SECA study. Total MTV and TLG under the cut-off values were significantly correlated to improved OS at three and five years (p = 0.027 and 0.026) and DFS (p = 0.01). One, three and five-year OS and DFS were not significantly related to SUV_max, SUV_mean, SUV_peak or T/B-ratio.

Conclusion

Total MTV and TLG from ¹⁸F FDG PET/CT prior to LT for nonresectable CLM were significantly correlated to improved three and five-year OS and DFS and can potentially improve the patient selection for LT.

Kanas GP, Taylor A, Primrose JN, Langeberg WJ, Kelsh MA, Mowat FS, et al. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin Epidemiol. 2012;4:283–301. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S34285.PubMedPubMedCentral

Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:693–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603143341104.CrossRefPubMed

Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, Bhoori S, Schiavo M, Mariani L, et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70284-5.CrossRefPubMed

Masuoka HC, Rosen CB. Transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Liver Dis. 2011;15:699–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cld.2011.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

Lee KK, Kim DG, Moon IS, Lee MD, Park JH. Liver transplantation versus liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:47–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21415.CrossRefPubMed

Le Treut YP, Gregoire E, Klempnauer J, Belghiti J, Jouve E, Lerut J, et al. Liver transplantation for neuroendocrine tumors in Europe-results and trends in patient selection: a 213-case European liver transplant registry study. Ann Surg. 2013;257:807–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828ee17c.CrossRefPubMed

Hoti E, Adam R. Liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancers. Transpl Int. 2008;21:1107–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00735.x.CrossRefPubMed

Hagness M, Foss A, Line PD, Scholz T, Jorgensen PF, Fosby B, et al. Liver transplantation for nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257:800–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182823957.CrossRefPubMed

Briggs RH, Chowdhury FU, Lodge JP, Scarsbrook AF. Clinical impact of FDG PET-CT in patients with potentially operable metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:1167–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.07.046.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lin M, Wong K, Ng WL, Shon IH, Morgan M. Positron emission tomography and colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;77:30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Network NCC. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines Version 32017 Colon and Rectal Cancer 2017.

12.

Bipat S, van Leeuwen MS, Comans EF, Pijl ME, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis--meta-analysis. Radiology. 2005;237:123–31. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371042060.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Maffione AM, Lopci E, Bluemel C, Giammarile F, Herrmann K, Rubello D. Diagnostic accuracy and impact on management of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:152–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2930-4.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Patel S, McCall M, Ohinmaa A, Bigam D, Dryden DM. Positron emission tomography/computed tomographic scans compared to computed tomographic scans for detecting colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2011;253:666–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821110c9.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ozis SE, Soydal C, Akyol C, Can N, Kucuk ON, Yagci C, et al. The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the primary staging of rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMed

17.

Tam HH, Cook GJ, Chau I, Drake B, Zerizer I, Du Y, et al. The role of routine clinical pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting outcome of colorectal liver metastasis. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e259–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000744.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Xia Q, Liu J, Wu C, Song S, Tong L, Huang G, et al. Prognostic significance of (18)FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases: a meta-analysis. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-015-0055-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bai B, Bading J, Conti PS. Tumor quantification in clinical positron emission tomography. Theranostics. 2013;3:787–801. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.5629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0719-7.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Pan L, Gu P, Huang G, Xue H, Wu S. Prognostic significance of SUV on PET/CT in patients with esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21:1008–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e328323d6fa.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Al-Sarraf N, Gately K, Lucey J, Aziz R, Doddakula K, Wilson L, et al. Clinical implication and prognostic significance of standardised uptake value of primary non-small cell lung cancer on positron emission tomography: analysis of 176 cases. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;34:892–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.07.023.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Vincent A, Bains MS, Larson S, et al. Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3255–60. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.11.109.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Appelbaum D, Pu Y. Independent prognostic value of whole-body metabolic tumor burden from FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013;8:181–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0749-7.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Dibble EH, Alvarez AC, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, Subramaniam RM. 18F-FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:709–15. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.099531.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Higgins KA, Hoang JK, Roach MC, Chino J, Yoo DS, Turkington TG, et al. Analysis of pretreatment FDG-PET SUV parameters in head-and-neck cancer: tumor SUVmean has superior prognostic value. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:548–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.050.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Shady W, Kishore S, Gavane S, Do RK, Osborne JR, Ulaner GA, et al. Metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis on FDG-PET/CT can predict overall survival after (90)Y radioembolization of colorectal liver metastases: A comparison with SUVmax, SUVpeak, and RECIST 1.0. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1224–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Ogawa S, Itabashi M, Kondo C, Momose M, Sakai S, Kameoka S. Prognostic Value of Total Lesion Glycolysis Measured by 18F-FDG-PET/CT in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:3495–500.PubMed

29.

Kim YI, Paeng JC, Cheon GJ, Suh KS, Lee DS, Chung JK, et al. Prediction of Posttransplantation Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Metabolic and Volumetric Indices of 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1045–51. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.170076.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gulec SA, Suthar RR, Barot TC, Pennington K. The prognostic value of functional tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing 90Y selective internal radiation therapy plus chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1289–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1758-4.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Bailly M, Venel Y, Orain I, Salame E, Ribeiro MJ. 18F-FDG PET in Liver Transplantation Setting of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Predicting Histology? Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e126–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000001040.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Detry O, Govaerts L, Deroover A, Vandermeulen M, Meurisse N, Malenga S, et al. Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in liver transplantation for hepatocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:3049–54. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3049.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim YK, Kim C, Kim SK, Han SS, et al. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT predicts early tumor recurrence in living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transpl Int. 2013;26:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01572.x.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lin CY, Liao CW, Chu LY, Yen KY, Jeng LB, Hsu CN, et al. Predictive Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Vascular Invasion in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Before Liver Transplantation. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e183–e7. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001545.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Fendler WP, Philippe Tiega DB, Ilhan H, Paprottka PM, Heinemann V, Jakobs TF, et al. Validation of several SUV-based parameters derived from 18F-FDG PET for prediction of survival after SIRT of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1202–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.116426.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Soydal C, Kucuk ON, Gecim EI, Bilgic S, Elhan AH. The prognostic value of quantitative parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of response to internal radiation therapy with yttrium-90 in patients with liver metastases of colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2013;34:501-506. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32835f9427.

38.

Zerizer I, Al-Nahhas A, Towey D, Tait P, Ariff B, Wasan H, et al. The role of early (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of progression-free survival after (9)(0)Y radioembolization: comparison with RECIST and tumour density criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1391–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2149-1.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Sabet A, Meyer C, Aouf A, Sabet A, Ghamari S, Pieper CC, et al. Early post-treatment FDG PET predicts survival after 90Y microsphere radioembolization in liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:370–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2935-z.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Hagness M, Foss A, Egge TS, Dueland S. Patterns of recurrence after liver transplantation for nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1323–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3449-9.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24:523–43. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.242025724.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Pettinato C, Nanni C, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Sarnelli A, Civollani S, et al. Artefacts of PET/CT images. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. 2006;2:e60. https://doi.org/10.2349/biij.2.4.e60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Chi A, Nguyen NP. 4D PET/CT as a Strategy to Reduce Respiratory Motion Artifacts in FDG-PET/CT. Front Oncol. 2014;4:205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00205.PubMedPubMedCentral

Title: The prognostic value of 18F–FDG PET/CT prior to liver transplantation for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases
Authors: Harald Grut
Svein Dueland
Pål Dag Line
Mona Elisabeth Revheim
Publication date: 01-02-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3843-9

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

The prognostic value of ¹⁸F–FDG PET/CT prior to liver transplantation for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

The role of interim FDG PET-CT after induction chemotherapy as a predictor of concurrent chemoradiotherapy efficacy and prognosis for head and neck cancer

Could 68Ga-somatostatin analogues be an important alternative to 18F-DOPA PET/CT in pediatrics?

Quantitative 18F-DOPA PET/CT in pheochromocytoma: the relationship between tumor secretion and its biochemical phenotype

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) grade 3 (G3) neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) - a single-institution retrospective analysis

Delayed response after repeated 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

Klaus Bohndorf, Mark Anderson, Mark Davies, Herwig Imhof, Klaus Woertler: Imaging of bones and joints. A concise, multimodality approach