Impact of a modified peritoneal cancer index using FDG-PET/CT (PET-PCI) in predicting tumor grade and progression-free survival in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei.
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
/ pharmacology
Humans
Japan
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
/ methods
Peritoneal Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prognosis
Progression-Free Survival
Pseudomyxoma Peritonei
/ diagnosis
Radiopharmaceuticals
/ pharmacology
Survival Rate
/ trends
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Positron-emission tomography
Prognosis
Pseudomyxoma peritonei
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
06
12
2018
accepted:
11
02
2019
revised:
17
01
2019
pubmed:
16
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
16
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The peritoneal cancer index (PCI) is widely used for assessing pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) in surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of a modified PCI using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG)-PET/CT (PET-PCI) for predicting pathologic grade and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PMP. Thirty-five patients who underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT before cytoreductive surgery and/or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy were enrolled. PET-PCI was determined by summing up the visually scored 18F-FDG uptake of PMP lesions in 13 specific abdominal-pelvic regions. Uptake score was defined as 0, no lesion or lesion without uptake; 1, slight uptake less than or equivalent to mediastinal blood pool; 2, moderate uptake above mediastinal but below or equal to liver; and 3, intense uptake moderately to markedly higher than liver. SUVmax of the lesion was also evaluated. Pathologic diagnosis revealed 19 patients with low-grade PMP and 16 patients with high-grade PMP. Patients with high-grade PMP showed significantly higher PET-PCI and SUVmax than patients with low-grade PMP (PET-PCI 14.8 vs. 8.7, p = 0.007; SUVmax 3.6 vs. 2.6, p = 0.013). Using a cutoff PET-PCI of 12, Kaplan-Meier analyses showed a significant difference in PFS between patients with high and low PET-PCI (p < 0.001; hazard ratio (HR), 12.4). For SUVmax, the optimal cutoff was 2.7 and the correlation with PFS was also significant (p = 0.008; HR, 4.7). In multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression, PET-PCI was independently and significantly correlated with PFS. PET-PCI can reflect histopathologic features and appears useful for predicting recurrence in patients with PMP. • Peritoneal cancer index using 18F-FDG-PET/CT (PET-PCI) has great potential for predicting progression-free survival in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei. • PET-PCI provides higher prognostic performance than maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). • PET-PCI shows high correlation with histopathologic grade of pseudomyxoma peritonei.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30874878
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06102-1
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06102-1
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5709-5716Références
J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Dec;203(6):878-86
pubmed: 17116556
J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Dec;181(6):530-8
pubmed: 7582228
Eur J Cancer. 2001 May;37(8):979-84
pubmed: 11334722
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006 Aug;32(6):597-601
pubmed: 16617003
Ann Surg Oncol. 1999 Dec;6(8):727-31
pubmed: 10622499
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2014 Jan;33(1):1-10
pubmed: 24300528
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6237-42
pubmed: 19917862
J Clin Pathol. 2012 Oct;65(10):919-23
pubmed: 22718846
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 27;8(33):55657-55683
pubmed: 28903452
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Jan;40(1):14-26
pubmed: 26492181
Ann Surg. 2011 Aug;254(2):294-301
pubmed: 21772129
J Surg Oncol. 2004 May 1;86(2):64-73
pubmed: 15112247
Mod Pathol. 2015 Jan;28 Suppl 1:S67-79
pubmed: 25560600
Oncotarget. 2017 May 16;8(20):33884-33896
pubmed: 27980228
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Jun;18(6):1582-9
pubmed: 21207170
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Apr;16(4):762-70
pubmed: 22258877
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(4):411-4
pubmed: 15285293
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2012 Oct;21(4):611-23
pubmed: 23021719
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Sep;17(9):2330-40
pubmed: 20232161
Oncotarget. 2016 Dec 13;7(50):83544-83553
pubmed: 27835875
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 Feb;34(2):196-201
pubmed: 17524597
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011 Oct;135(10):1261-8
pubmed: 21970481
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Feb;20(2):307-12
pubmed: 26162922
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 10;30(20):2449-56
pubmed: 22614976
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Aug;96(33):e7813
pubmed: 28816978
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1630-7
pubmed: 26907364
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Oct;35(10):1078-84
pubmed: 19285828
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jan;39(1):27-38
pubmed: 21946983
Am J Surg Pathol. 1995 Dec;19(12):1390-408
pubmed: 7503361
J Surg Oncol. 2008 Sep 15;98(4):277-82
pubmed: 18726894