Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Computed Tomography | Original research

The metabolic parameters based on volume in PET/CT are associated with clinicopathological N stage of colorectal cancer and can predict prognosis

Authors: Hidenori Kido, Shunsuke Kato, Kimihiko Funahashi, Kazutoshi Shibuya, Yousuke Sasaki, Yoshihisa Urita, Masaaki Hori, Sunao Mizumura

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

A combination of positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) is an important modality for the diagnosis of carcinoma. Metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) have been reported as metabolic parameters in PET/CT since the late 1990s, and they are expected to be useful in diagnosing diverse cancers and as prognostic biomarkers. We evaluated the potential of these parameters in the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) by comparing them with conventional parameters, including the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). We enrolled 84 patients who underwent surgery for CRC without distal metastasis between April 2015 and April 2019. SUVmax, MTV, and TLG were measured by ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT. To find an optimal threshold value related to prognosis, the volume of interest in the primary carcinoma was measured at fixed relative and absolute thresholds based on SUVmax (30%, 40%, and 50%; 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5, respectively), tumor-to-liver standardized uptake ratios, TLR (1.0, 1.5, and 2.0), and SUV normalized to lean body mass, SUL (2.0, 2.5, and 3.0). After classifying the patients into two groups according to pathological N stage, the optimal threshold values of all metabolic parameters were compared between groups using a non-parametric comparison test.

Result

The most suitable thresholds for MTV were a SUVmax of 3.5 and a TLR 2.0. TLG with a SUVmax value of 40% showed the most significant difference. The MTV standard uptake ratio of 2.0 was significantly associated with pathological N stage.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that an MTV TLR 2.0 on PET/CT reflects pathological N stage in local patients with CRC.

Herbertson RA, Lee ST, Tebbutt N, Scott AM. The expanding role of PET technology in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1774–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm108.CrossRefPubMed

Luboldt W, Volker T, Wiedemann B, Zöphel K, Wehrmann U, Koch A, et al. Detection of relevant colonic neoplasms with PET/CT: promising accuracy with minimal CT dose and a tandardized PET cut-off. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2274–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1772-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Visioni A, Kim J. Positron emission tomography (PET) for benign and malignant disease. Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91:249–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2010.10.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Shim JR, Lee SD, Han SS, Lee SJ, Lee DE, Kim SK, et al. Prognostic significance of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases after hepatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:670–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.243.CrossRefPubMed

Sridhar P, Mercier G, Tan J, Truong MT, Daly B, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET metabolic tumor volume segmentation and pathologic volume of primary human solid tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1114–9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11456.CrossRefPubMed

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

Watanabe T, Itabashi M, Shimada Y, et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0315-2.CrossRefPubMed

Mainenti PP, Cirillo LC, Camera L, Persico F, Cantalupo T, Pace L, et al. Accuracy of single phase contrast enhanced multidetector CT colonography in the preoperative staging of colo-rectal cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:453–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.001.CrossRefPubMed

Filippone A, Ambrosini R, Fuschi M, Marinelli T, Genovesi D, Bonomo L. Preoperative T and N staging of colorectal cancer: accuracy of contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT colonography—initial experience. Radiology. 2004;231:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2311021152.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kijima S, Sasaki T, Nagata K, Utano K, Lefor AT, Sugimoto H. Preoperative evaluation of colorectal cancer using CT colonography, MRI, and PET/CT. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:16964–75. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i45.16964.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Chen SW, Chen WT, Wu YC, Yen KY, Hsieh TC, Lin TY, et al. Which FDG/PET parameters of the primary tumors in colon or sigmoid cancer provide the best correlation with the pathological findings? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e405–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.022.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Deantonio L, Caroli A, Puta E, Ferrante D, Apicella F, Turri L, et al. Does baseline 18F FDG-PET/CT correlate with tumor staging, response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and prognosis in patients with rectal cancer? Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1154-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Suzuki Y, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Shigeta K, Murakami K, et al. Metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in PET/CT correlate with the pathological findings of colorectal cancer and allow its accurate staging. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:761–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001332.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR). Japanese Classification of Colorectal Carcinoma. 8th ed. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan; 2013. p. 10.

15.

Mikami H, Nagase H. Cancer survival rates at Japanese Association of Clinical Cancer Centers. https://kapweb.chiba-cancer-registry.org/full. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.

16.

Im HJ, Bradshaw T, Solaiyappan M, Cho SY. Current methods to define metabolic tumor volume in positron emission tomography: which one is better? Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;52(1):5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-017-0493-6.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hirata K, Kobayashi K, Wong KP, et al. A semi-automated technique determining the liver standardized uptake value reference for tumor delineation in FDG PET-CT. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8): e105682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105682.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Ike H, Ohki S, Ohmi Y, Tsujinaka Y, Tajima S, Iida A, Jyo T, Yamaoka H, Furushima K, Ohde N, Tsuchiya S. Clinical studies on recurrence of colorectal cancer. Jpn J Gastroenterol Surg. 1987;20:1723–31.CrossRef

19.

Higashi K, Ito K, Hiramatsu Y, Ishikawa T, Sakuma T, Matsunari I, et al. 18F-FDG uptake by primary tumor as a predictor of intratumoral lymphatic vessel invasion and lymph node involvement in non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of a multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:267–73.PubMed

20.

Kim DH, Song BI, Hong CM, Jeong SY, Lee SW, Lee J, et al. Metabolic parameters using ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT correlate with occult lymph node metastasis in squamous cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2051–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2831-6.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ouyang ML, Tang K, Xu MM, Lin J, Li TC, Zheng XW. Prediction of occult lymph node metastasis using tumor-to-blood standardized uptake ratio and metabolic parameters in clinical N0 lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43:715–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002229.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kido H, Mizumura S, Funahashi K, Shibuya K, Urita Y, Terahara A. Metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in PET/CT are related with the clinicopathological T Stage of colorectal cancer and predict its prognosis. Toho J Med. 2018;4:132–40. https://doi.org/10.14994/tohojmed.2018-024.CrossRef

23.

Erdi YE, Macapinlac H, Rosenzweig KE, Humm JL, Larson SM, Erdi AK, et al. Use of PET to monitor the response of lung cancer to radiation treatment. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:861–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590000258.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hain SF, Curran KM, Beggs AD, Fogelman I, O’Doherty MJ, Maisey MN. FDG-PET as a “metabolic biopsy” tool in thoracic lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(9):1336–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590100563.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Beggs AD, Hain SF, Curran KM, O’Doherty MJ. FDG-PET as a “metabolic biopsy” tool in non-lung lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:542–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-001-0736-7.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Paulino AC, Johnstone PA. FDG-PET in radiotherapy treatment planning: Pandora’s box? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.045.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Im HJ, Pak K, Cheon GJ, Kang KW, Kim SJ, Kim IJ, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters of (18)F-FDG PET in non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:241–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2903-7.CrossRefPubMed

28.

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-S150. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRef

Title: The metabolic parameters based on volume in PET/CT are associated with clinicopathological N stage of colorectal cancer and can predict prognosis
Authors: Hidenori Kido
Shunsuke Kato
Kimihiko Funahashi
Kazutoshi Shibuya
Yousuke Sasaki
Yoshihisa Urita
Masaaki Hori
Sunao Mizumura
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Metastasis
Computed Tomography
Positron Emission Tomography
Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Biomarkers
Published in: EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-021-00831-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

The metabolic parameters based on volume in PET/CT are associated with clinicopathological N stage of colorectal cancer and can predict prognosis

Abstract

Background

Result

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Result

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Semi-quantitative measurements of chemokine receptor 4-targeted 68Ga-pentixafor PET/CT in response assessment of Waldenström macroglobulinemia/lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma

The significance of equivocal bone findings in staging PSMA imaging in the preoperative setting: validation of the PSMA-RADS version 1.0

Comparison of FDG and FMISO uptakes and distributions in head and neck squamous cell cancer tumors

Intraindividual comparison of [68 Ga]-Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]-F-PSMA-1007 in prostate cancer patients: a retrospective single-center analysis

Increased [18F]FMISO accumulation under hypoxia by multidrug-resistant protein 1 inhibitors

Head to head comparison of [99mTc]Tc(CO)3(NTA) and [99mTc]Tc-MAG3 in patients with suspected obstruction