Combination of FDG-PET and FMISO-PET as a treatment strategy for patients undergoing early-stage NSCLC stereotactic radiotherapy.
Fluorodeoxyglucose
Fluoromisonidazole
Hypoxia
Non-small cell lung cancer
Stereotactic body radiation therapy
Journal
EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Dec 2019
04 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
07
10
2019
accepted:
21
11
2019
entrez:
6
12
2019
pubmed:
6
12
2019
medline:
6
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated the prognostic predictive value of the combination of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)- and fluoromisonidazole (FMISO)-PET in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We prospectively examined patients with pathologically proven NSCLC; all underwent FDG and FMISO PET/CT scans before SBRT. PET images were acquired using a whole-body time-of-flight PET-CT scanner with respiratory gating. We classified them into recurrent and non-recurrent groups based on their clinical follow-ups and compared the groups' tumor diameters and PET parameters (i.e., maximum of the standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume, tumor-to-muscle ratio, and tumor-to-blood ratio). We performed univariate analysis to evaluate the impact of the PET variables on the patients' progression-free survival (PFS). We divided the patients by thresholds of FDG SUVmax and FMISO SUVmax obtained from receiver operating characteristic analysis for assessment of recurrence rate and PFS. Thirty-two NSCLC patients (19 male and 13 females; median age, 83 years) were enrolled. All received SBRT. At the study endpoint, 23 patients (71.9%) were non-recurrent and nine patients (28.1%) had recurrent disease. Significant between-group differences were observed in tumor diameter and all the PET parameters, demonstrating that those were significant predictors of the recurrence in all patients. In the 22 patients with tumors > 2 cm, tumor diameter and FDG SUVmax were not significant predictors. Thirty-two patients were divided into three patterns from the thresholds of FDG SUVmax (6.81) and FMISO SUVmax (1.89); A, low FDG and low FMISO (n = 14); B, high FDG and low FMISO (n = 8); C, high FDG and high FMISO (n = 10). No pattern A patient experienced tumor recurrence, whereas two pattern B patients (25%) and seven pattern C patients (70%) exhibited recurrence. A Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients revealed a significant difference in PFS between patterns A and B (p = 0.013) and between patterns A and C (p < 0.001). In the tumors > 2 cm patients, significant differences in PFS were demonstrated between pattern A and C patients (p = 0.002). The combination of FDG- and FMISO-PET can identify patients with a baseline risk of recurrence and indicate whether additional therapy might be performed to improve survival.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We investigated the prognostic predictive value of the combination of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)- and fluoromisonidazole (FMISO)-PET in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We prospectively examined patients with pathologically proven NSCLC; all underwent FDG and FMISO PET/CT scans before SBRT. PET images were acquired using a whole-body time-of-flight PET-CT scanner with respiratory gating. We classified them into recurrent and non-recurrent groups based on their clinical follow-ups and compared the groups' tumor diameters and PET parameters (i.e., maximum of the standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume, tumor-to-muscle ratio, and tumor-to-blood ratio). We performed univariate analysis to evaluate the impact of the PET variables on the patients' progression-free survival (PFS). We divided the patients by thresholds of FDG SUVmax and FMISO SUVmax obtained from receiver operating characteristic analysis for assessment of recurrence rate and PFS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-two NSCLC patients (19 male and 13 females; median age, 83 years) were enrolled. All received SBRT. At the study endpoint, 23 patients (71.9%) were non-recurrent and nine patients (28.1%) had recurrent disease. Significant between-group differences were observed in tumor diameter and all the PET parameters, demonstrating that those were significant predictors of the recurrence in all patients. In the 22 patients with tumors > 2 cm, tumor diameter and FDG SUVmax were not significant predictors. Thirty-two patients were divided into three patterns from the thresholds of FDG SUVmax (6.81) and FMISO SUVmax (1.89); A, low FDG and low FMISO (n = 14); B, high FDG and low FMISO (n = 8); C, high FDG and high FMISO (n = 10). No pattern A patient experienced tumor recurrence, whereas two pattern B patients (25%) and seven pattern C patients (70%) exhibited recurrence. A Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients revealed a significant difference in PFS between patterns A and B (p = 0.013) and between patterns A and C (p < 0.001). In the tumors > 2 cm patients, significant differences in PFS were demonstrated between pattern A and C patients (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of FDG- and FMISO-PET can identify patients with a baseline risk of recurrence and indicate whether additional therapy might be performed to improve survival.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31802264
doi: 10.1186/s13550-019-0578-6
pii: 10.1186/s13550-019-0578-6
pmc: PMC6892988
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
104Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
ID : 16K10428
Références
Lung Cancer. 2009 Jan;63(1):50-7
pubmed: 18565615
J Nucl Med. 2005 Feb;46(2):253-60
pubmed: 15695784
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Mar;132:188-196
pubmed: 30391106
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 04;11(1):e0146195
pubmed: 26727114
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Sep 1;48(2):435-42
pubmed: 10974459
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):630-7
pubmed: 25981812
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 10;27(20):3290-6
pubmed: 19414667
Science. 2016 Apr 8;352(6282):175-80
pubmed: 27124451
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Nov 1;48(4):1187-95
pubmed: 11072178
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Sep 6;12(1):148
pubmed: 28877734
Br J Radiol. 1953 Dec;26(312):638-48
pubmed: 13106296
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 19;348(25):2500-7
pubmed: 12815135
J Nucl Med. 2017 Jul;58(7):1045-1053
pubmed: 28254869
J Nucl Med. 2006 Dec;47(12):1921-6
pubmed: 17138734
Clin Lung Cancer. 2019 Jan;20(1):e53-e61
pubmed: 30348595
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 May;5(5):612-9
pubmed: 20234323
J Nucl Med. 2014 Mar;55(3):414-22
pubmed: 24549286
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2017 Oct;61(5):652-659
pubmed: 28266166
Lancet. 1999 Apr 17;353(9161):1331-2
pubmed: 10218540
J Nucl Med. 2013 Feb;54(2):201-7
pubmed: 23321456
JAMA. 2010 Mar 17;303(11):1070-6
pubmed: 20233825
Mol Imaging Biol. 2018 Dec;20(6):1061-1067
pubmed: 29623510
J Nucl Med. 2002 Jan;43(1):39-45
pubmed: 11801701
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):1183-1192
pubmed: 29859786
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Mar;14(3):475-481
pubmed: 30503890
Clin Lung Cancer. 2010 Sep 1;11(5):335-40
pubmed: 20837459
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Sep 1;36(2):417-28
pubmed: 8892467
J Thorac Oncol. 2008 Jan;3(1):6-12
pubmed: 18166834
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 May;42(6):956-76
pubmed: 25701238
BMC Cancer. 2006 Mar 04;6:51
pubmed: 16515707
J Thorac Oncol. 2014 Jun;9(6):834-42
pubmed: 24787963