Chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer without aortic lymph node involvement: can we consider metabolic parameters of pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT for treatment tailoring?
Adult
Aged
Aorta
/ pathology
Biomarkers, Tumor
Chemoradiotherapy
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Humans
Lymph Nodes
/ pathology
Lymphatic Metastasis
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
Neoplasm Metastasis
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Prognosis
Radiopharmaceuticals
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Cervix cancer
Chemoradiotherapy
FDG-PET/CT
Prognosis
SUV
Journal
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
ISSN: 1619-7089
Titre abrégé: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101140988
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
06
06
2018
accepted:
19
11
2018
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
15
7
2020
entrez:
8
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Aim of the study was to assess impact of pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters on response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and survival in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients without paraaortic lymph node involvement. LACC patients treated with CRT without macrometastatic involvement after paraaortic surgical staging were included. All patients had received at least 45 Gy radiotherapy and five cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. High-risk histologies were excluded. Two senior nuclear physician experts in gynaecologic oncology reviewed all PET/CT exams, and extracted tumor SUVmax, MTV, and TLG (standardized uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis respectively). Response to CRT was assessed with a pelvic MRI done after 45 Gy. Medical charts were reviewed for clinical, pathology, and survival data. Ninety-three patients were included in the study. The overall survival (OS) rates at 2 and 5 years were 83.0% [95%CI: 72.5-89.8] and 71.2% [57.5-81.2] respectively. The RFS rates at 2 and 5 years were 72.5% [61.5-80.9] and 64.4% [52.3-74.2] respectively. Higher cervical SUVmax and TLG were significantly associated with poor response to CRT. In multivariate analysis, cervical SUVmax was the main predictive factor for OS. Cervical tumor SUVmax was demonstrated to be a non-invasive prognostic biomarker for response to treatment and survival in LACC patients without paraaortic involvement. SUVmax and other PET/CT metabolic parameters require further prospective investigation to help tailoring of local treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30729273
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4219-5
pii: 10.1007/s00259-018-4219-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1551-1559Références
Nucl Med Biol. 2000 Oct;27(7):643-6
pubmed: 11091106
Gynecol Oncol. 2002 Feb;84(2):321-6
pubmed: 11812094
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Apr;101(1):147-51
pubmed: 16263155
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S43-103
pubmed: 17161167
Anticancer Res. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4B):2155-9
pubmed: 17695498
Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;110(8):1738-44
pubmed: 17786947
CMAJ. 2008 Mar 25;178(7):855-62
pubmed: 18362381
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Aug 15;14(16):5236-41
pubmed: 18698042
J Nucl Med. 2008 Dec;49(12):1973-9
pubmed: 18997052
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Mar;28(3):374-83
pubmed: 19244009
Cancer. 2009 Aug 1;115(15):3548-54
pubmed: 19472399
Cancer. 2010 Mar 15;116(6):1469-75
pubmed: 20108309
Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Oct;119(1):81-6
pubmed: 20580064
Cancer. 2010 Nov 1;116(21):5093-101
pubmed: 20629080
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):185-90
pubmed: 22014958
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb;138(2):239-46
pubmed: 22102174
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Jan 1;85(1):116-22
pubmed: 22520475
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):e212-20
pubmed: 22554549
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127(1):136-40
pubmed: 22735785
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127(1):131-5
pubmed: 22772064
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 Sep;22(7):1226-33
pubmed: 22810970
Anticancer Res. 2013 Jan;33(1):283-6
pubmed: 23267158
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jun;129(3):586-592
pubmed: 23369941
Nucl Med Commun. 2013 Aug;34(8):741-8
pubmed: 23676840
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Jul;23(6):1104-10
pubmed: 23792605
Ann Nucl Med. 2013 Oct;27(8):756-63
pubmed: 23793926
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Nov 1;87(3):549-54
pubmed: 24074928
Nucl Med Commun. 2014 Mar;35(3):268-75
pubmed: 24253568
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 14;10(9):e0137743
pubmed: 26368542
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 May;293(5):1081-6
pubmed: 26385726
Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;41(1):34-40
pubmed: 26505856
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):199-207
pubmed: 26569057
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Mar 16;11:43
pubmed: 26984385
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):512-518
pubmed: 27569847
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Apr;44(4):581-588
pubmed: 27738729
Hell J Nucl Med. 2016 Sep-Dec;19(3):254-268
pubmed: 27824966
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):312-317
pubmed: 27908530
J Nucl Med. 2017 Apr;58(4):523-532
pubmed: 28232605
Br J Radiol. 2017 Jul;90(1075):20170035
pubmed: 28508679
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Oct;44(11):1862-1869
pubmed: 28534183
J Glob Oncol. 2016 May 25;2(5):311-340
pubmed: 28717717
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv72-iv83
pubmed: 28881916
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 May;45(5):768-786
pubmed: 29222685
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Mar;28(3):575-580
pubmed: 29372911