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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical and Translational Oncology
Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Research Article

Response to chemotherapy estimates by FDG PET is an important prognostic factor in patients with Ewing sarcoma

Authors: A. Raciborska, K. Bilska, K. Drabko, E. Michalak, R. Chaber, M. Pogorzała, K. Połczyńska, G. Sobol, M. Wieczorek, K. Muszyńska-Rosłan, M. Rychlowska-Pruszyńska, C. Rodriguez-Galindo, M. Dziuk

Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Response to chemotherapy is a prognostic factor in patients with Ewing sarcoma (ES); the role of FDG PET to predict response in these patients has not been thoroughly investigated. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and the potential of FDG PET to predict response to chemotherapy (CHT).

Materials and methods

We analyzed data of 50 patients with ES (median age 12.6 years). All patients were treated with neoadjuvant CHT, and underwent surgery for local control. All patients had 18F-FDG PET/CT at diagnosis and after induction CHT, prior to local control. We compared response assessed by histopathology with FDG PET using standard uptake values (SUVs).

Results

Median SUV at diagnosis (SUV I) was 5 (range 1.2–17), and median SUV after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SUV II) was 1.8 (range 0–8.4). Median SUV II/I ratio was 0.3 (range 0–1). SUV at diagnosis was significantly lower in patients with good histological response than in patients with poor histological response (median 3.8 vs. 7.2, p 0.02). We found a significant correlation between SUV II and outcome; the positive predictive value of an SUV II ≤ 2.5 for favorable response was 84.21 %, and the median SUV II was significantly higher in patients with disease progression (2.3 vs. 1.6, p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, necrosis and SUV II were significant predictors of outcome.

Conclusions

18F-FDG PET demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy for response to initial chemotherapy in patients with ES and it correlates with outcome. The role of FDG PET in predicting response and outcome should be further investigated.
Literature
1.
Rodriguez-Galindo C, Liu T, Krasin MJ, Wu J, Billups CA, Daw NC, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors: review of St.Jude Children’s Research Hospital studies. Cancer. 2007;110(2):375–84.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Rodriguez-Galindo C, Billups CA, Kun LE, Rao BN, Pratt CB, Merchant TE, et al. Survival after recurrence of Ewing tumors. Cancer. 2002;94(2):561–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Raciborska A, Bilska K, Drabko K, Chaber R, Sobol G, Pogorzała M, et al. Validation of a multimodal treatment protocol for Ewing sarcoma—a report from the Polish Pediatric Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014;61(12):2170–4.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ladenstein R, Pötschger U, Le Deley MC, Whelan J, Paulussen M, Oberlin O, et al. Primary disseminated multifocal Ewing sarcoma: results of the Euro-EWING 99 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3284–91.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rodriguez-Galindo C, Navid F, Liu T, Billups CA, Rao BN, Krasin MJ. Prognostic factors for local and distant control in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(4):814–20.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Shankar AG, Ashley S, Craft AW, Pinkerton CR. Outcome after relapse in an unselected cohort of children and adolescents with Ewing sarcoma. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2003;40:141–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Raciborska A, Bilska K, Drabko K, Chaber R, Pogorzala M, Wyrobek E, et al. Vincristine, irinotecan and temozolomide in patients with refractory Ewing sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60(10):1621–5.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Jurgens C, Weston C, Lewis I, Whelan J, Paulussen M, Oberlin O, et al. Safety assessment of intensive induction with vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (VIDE) in the treatment of Ewing tumors in the EURO-E.W.I.N.G. 99 clinical trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006;47(1):22–9.CrossRef
9.
Le Deley MC, Paulussen M, Lewis I, Brennan B, Ranft A, Whelan J, et al. Cyclophosphamide compared with ifosfamide in consolidation treatment of standard-risk Ewing sarcoma: results of the randomized noninferiority Euro-EWING99-R1 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(23):2440–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Paulussen M, Craft AW, Lewis I, Hackshaw A, Douglas C, Dunst J, et al. Results of the EICESS-92 Study: two randomized trials of Ewing’s sarcoma treatment—cyclophosphamide compared with ifosfamide in standard-risk patients and assessment of benefit of etoposide added to standard treatment in high-risk patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(27):4385–93.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Leavey PJ, Mascarenhas L, Marina N, Chen Z, Krailo M, Miser J, et al. Prognostic factors for patients with Ewing sarcoma (EWS) at first recurrence following multi-modality therapy: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;51:334–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
Biswas B, Rastogi S, Khan SA, Mohanti BK, Sharma DN, Sharma MC, et al. Outcomes and prognostic factors for Ewing-family tumors of the extremities. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(10):841–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C, Jürgens H, Schober O. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25(11):874–81.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Treglia G, Salsano M, Stefanelli A, Mattoli MV, Giordano A, Bonomo L. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41(3):249–56.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Gerth HU, Juergens KU, Dirksen U, Gerss J, Schober O, Franzius C. Significant benefit of multimodal imaging: PET/CT compared with PET alone in staging and follow-up of patients with Ewing tumors. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(12):1932–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Furth C, Amthauer H, Denecke T, Ruf J, Henze G, Gutberlet M. Impact of whole-body MRI and FDG-PET on staging and assessment of therapy response in a patient with Ewing sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006;47(5):607–11.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Newman EN, Jones RL, Hawkins DS. An evaluation of [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography, bone scan, and bone marrow aspiration/biopsy as staging investigations in Ewing sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60(7):1113–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Völker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, Misch D, Schönberger S, Plotkin M, et al. Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(34):5435–41.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gyorke T, Zajic T, Lange A, Schäfer O, Moser E, Makó E, et al. Impact of FDG PET staging of Ewing sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 2006;27:17–24.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Franzius C, Sciuk J, Daldrup-Link HE, Jürgens H, Schober O. FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastases from malignant primary bone tumours: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(9):1305–11.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sharma P, Khangembam BC, Suman KC, Singh H, Rastogi S, Khan SA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDP PET/CT detecting recurrence in patients with primary skeletal Ewing sarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):1036–43.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mody RJ, Bui C, Hutchinson RJ, Yanik GA, Castle VP, Frey KA, et al. FDG PET imaging of childhood sarcomas. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010;54(2):222–7.PubMedCentralPubMed
23.
Pieper S, Ranft A, Braun-Munzinger G, Jurgens H, Paulussen M, Dirksen U. Ewing’s Tumors over the age of 40–a retrospective analysis of 47 patients treated according to the international clinical trials EICESS 92 and EURO-E.W.I.N.G. 99. Onkologie. 2008;31:657–63.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Stauss J, Franzius C, Pfluger T, Juergens KU, Biassoni L, Begent J, et al. Guidelines for 18F-FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(8):1581–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hawkins DS, Schuetze SM, Butrynski JE, Rajendran JG, Vernon CB, Conrad EU 3rd, et al. [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8828–34.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU 3rd, Bruckner JD, Eary JF. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [18F]-Fluorodeoxy-d-Glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2002;94(12):3277–84.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Brisse H, Ollivier L, Edeline V, Pacquement H, Michon J, Glorion C, et al. Imaging of malignant tumours of the long bones in children: monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and preoperative assessment. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34(8):595–605.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gupta K, Pawaskar A, Basu S, Rajan MG, Asopa RV, Arora B, et al. Potential role of FDG PET imaging in predicting metastatic potential and assessment of therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36(11):973–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gaston LL, Di Bella C, Slavin J, Hicks RJ, Choong PF. 18F-FDG PET response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma are different. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(8):1007–15.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Iagaru A, Chwala S, Menendez L, Conti PS. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for detection of pulmonary metastases from musculoskeletal sarcomas. Nucl Med Commun. 2006;27:795–802.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Response to chemotherapy estimates by FDG PET is an important prognostic factor in patients with Ewing sarcoma
Authors
A. Raciborska
K. Bilska
K. Drabko
E. Michalak
R. Chaber
M. Pogorzała
K. Połczyńska
G. Sobol
M. Wieczorek
K. Muszyńska-Rosłan
M. Rychlowska-Pruszyńska
C. Rodriguez-Galindo
M. Dziuk
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1699-048X
Electronic ISSN: 1699-3055
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-015-1351-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Clinical and Translational Oncology 2/2016 Go to the issue

Review Article

Twist as a new prognostic marker in hematological malignancies

Research Article

Clinical significance of plasma fibrinogen and D-dimer in predicting the chemotherapy efficacy and prognosis for small cell lung cancer patients

Research Article

Serum nectin-2 levels are diagnostic and prognostic in patients with colorectal carcinoma

Research Article

Pemetrexed for primary central nervous system lymphoma in the elderly

Research Article

Targeting thiamine-dependent enzymes for metabolic therapies in oral squamous cell carcinoma?

Research Article

Epstein–Barr virus-encoded small RNA 1 (EBER-1) could predict good prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits