Prospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT predictive value in patients with low rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and conservative surgery

Artor Niccoli-Asabella, Corinna Altini, Raffaele De Luca, Margherita Fanelli, Domenico Rubini, Cosimo Caliandro, Severino Montemurro, Giuseppe Rubini, Artor Niccoli-Asabella, Corinna Altini, Raffaele De Luca, Margherita Fanelli, Domenico Rubini, Cosimo Caliandro, Severino Montemurro, Giuseppe Rubini

Abstract

This study prospectively assessed (18)F-FDG PET/CT in predicting the response of locally advanced low rectal cancer (LRC) to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).

Methods: 56 patients treated with chemoradiation underwent two (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans (baseline and 5-6 weeks post-nCRT). (18)F-FDG uptake (SUVmax and SUVmean) and differences between baseline (SUV1) and post-nCRT (SUV2) scans (ΔSUV and RI%) were evaluated. Results were related to the Mandard's TRG and (y)pTNM.

Results: (18)F-FDG PET/CT sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV resulted in 88.6%, 66.7%, 83.92%, 90.7%, and 61.5%. SUV2 resulted in better than SUV1 to predict nCRT response by TRG, with no significant statistical difference between the SUVmax2 and SUVmean2 AUC (0.737 versus 0.736; P = 0.928). The same applies to the (y)pTNM (0.798 versus 0.782; P = 0.192). In relation to the TRG, RI values had a higher AUC than ΔSUV, with no significant difference between RImax and RImean (0.672 versus 0.695; P = 0.292). The same applied to the (y)pTNM (0.742 versus 0.741; P = 0.940). In both cases ΔSUV does not appear to be a good predictive tool. Logistic regression confirmed the better predictive role of SUVmax2 for the (y)pTNM (odds ratio = 1.58) and SUVmean2 for the TRG (odds ratio = 1.87).

Conclusions: (18)F-FDG PET/CT can evaluate response to nCRT in LRC, even if more studies are required to define the most significant parameter for predicting pathologic tumor changes.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A 77-year-old male with a vegetans eccentric ulcerated lesion, 45 mm in length, localized 3 cm from the anal verge (cT3N0). Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT MIP (a) and sagittal images (b) showed the rectal lesion, with value of 18.9 for SUVmax, 10.4 for SUVmean, and 3.0 SD (green arrows). The post-nCRT 18F-FDG PET/CT MIP (c) and sagittal images (d) did not show a pathological uptake of 18F-FDG (SUVmax = 2.5, SUVmean = 1.1, and std = 0.3). Histological specimen analysis showed (y)pT0N0 M0, TGR1, and R0 and the patient was classified as a complete responder. In this patient ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVmean, RImax, and RImean results were 16.4, 9.3, 86.77, and 89.42%, respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A 76-year-old male with an eccentric lesion, 30 mm in length, localized 2 cm from the anal verge (G3, cT3N0). Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT MIP (a) and sagittal images (b) showed the rectal lesion with a 12.9 value for SUVmax, 5.4 for SUVmean, and 1.5 SD (green arrows). The post-nCRT 18F-FDG PET/CT MIP (c) and sagittal images (d) showed, in the same site (green arrows), the persistence of 18F-FDG pathological uptake (SUVmax 11.8, SUVmean 5.4, and SD 1.5). Histological specimen analysis showed (y)pT3N0 M0, TGR4, and R0 and the patient was classified as a nonresponder. In this patient ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVmean, RImax, and RImean results were 1.10, 0, 8.5, and 0%, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curves for 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of SUVmax1, SUVmean1, SUVmax2, and SUVmean2 in predicting response to CRT based on Mandard's TRG (a) and the (y)pTNM (b) criteria.
Figure 4
Figure 4
ROC curves for 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVmean, RImax, and RImean in predicting response to CRT based on Mandard's TRG (a) and the (y)pTNM (b) criteria.

References

    1. Grassetto G, Marzola MC, Minicozzi A, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D. F-18 FDG PET/CT in rectal carcinoma: where are we now? Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2011;36(10):884–888.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Rectal Cancer, Version 2. 2010,
    1. Capirci C, Rampin L, Erba PA, et al. Sequential FDG-PET/CT reliably predicts response of locally advanced rectal cancer to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2007;34(10):1583–1593.
    1. Gearhart SL, Frassica D, Rosen R, Choti M, Schulick R, Wahl R. Improved staging with pretreatment positron emission tomography/computed tomography in low rectal cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2006;13(3):397–404.
    1. Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;345(9):638–646.
    1. Capirci C, Valentini V, Cionini L, et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term analysis of 566 ypCR patients. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2008;72(1):99–107.
    1. Kim CJ, Yeatman TJ, Coppola D, et al. Local excision of T2 and T3 rectal cancers after downstaging chemoradiation. Annals of Surgery. 2001;234(3):352–359.
    1. Murcia Duréndez MJ, Frutos Esteban L, Luján J, et al. The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessing the response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2013;40(1):91–97.
    1. Huh JW, Min JJ, Lee JH, Kim HR, Kim YJ. The predictive role of sequential FDG-PET/CT in response of locally advanced rectal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. American Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012;35(4):340–344.
    1. Capirci C, Rubello D, Pasini F, et al. The role of dual-time combined 18-fluorideoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the staging and restaging workup of locally advanced rectal cancer, treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy and radical surgery. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2009;74(5):1461–1469.
    1. Hoffmann K, Rau B, Wust P, et al. Restaging of locally advanced carcinoma of the rectum with MR imaging after preoperative radio-chemotherapy plus regional hyperthermia. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2002;178(7):386–392.
    1. Kim JW, Kim HC, Park JW, et al. Predictive value of 18FDG PET-CT for tumour response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy. International Journal of Colorectal Disease. 2013;28(9):1217–1224.
    1. Gadaleta CD, Solbiati L, Mattioli V, et al. Unresectable lung malignancy: combination therapy with segmental pulmonary arterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting microspheres and radiofrequency ablation in 17 patients. Radiology. 2013;267(2):627–637.
    1. Denecke T, Rau B, Hoffmann K-T, et al. Comparison of CT, MRI and FDG-PET in response prediction of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after multimodal preoperative therapy: is there a benefit in using functional imaging? European Radiology. 2005;15(8):1658–1666.
    1. Calvo FA, Domper M, Matute R, et al. 18F-FDG positron emission tomography staging and restaging in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2004;58(2):528–535.
    1. Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiation theraphy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic Correlations. Cancer. 1994;73:2680–2686.
    1. De Geus-Oei L, Vriens D, Van Laarhoven HWM, Van Der Graaf WTA, Oyen WJG. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2009;50(supplement 1):43S–54S.
    1. Kalff V, Duong C, Drummond EG, Matthews JP, Hicks RJ. Findings on 18F-FDG PET scans after neoadjuvant chemoradiation provides prognostic stratification in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma subsequently treated by radical surgery. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2006;47(1):14–22.
    1. Cascini GL, Avallone A, Delrio P, et al. 18F-FDG PET is an early predictor of pathologic tumor response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2006;47(8):1241–1248.
    1. Niccoli-Asabella A, Altini C, Notaristefano A, et al. A retrospective study comparing contrast-enhanced computed tomography with 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the early follow-up of patients with retroperitoneal sarcomas. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2013;34(1):32–39.
    1. Herrmann K, Bundschuh RA, Rosenberg R, et al. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for response prediction to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer by FDG-PET and MRI. Molecular Imaging and Biology. 2011;13(5):1011–1019.
    1. Shanmugan S, Arrangoiz R, Nitzkorski JR, et al. Predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer using 18FDG-PET/CT. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2012;19(7):2178–2185.
    1. Vecchio FM, Valentini V, Minsky BD, et al. The relationship of pathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) and outcomes after preoperative therapy in rectal cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2005;62(3):752–760.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa