Association of the primary tumor's SUVmax with survival after surgery for clinical stage IA esophageal cancer: a single-center retrospective study.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Esophageal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Esophagectomy
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Humans
Lymphatic Metastasis
Male
Middle Aged
Positron-Emission Tomography
Preoperative Care
Prognosis
ROC Curve
Radiopharmaceuticals
Retrospective Studies
Esophageal cancer
Esophagus
Gastrointestinal
PET
Surgery
Journal
International journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1437-7772
Titre abrégé: Int J Clin Oncol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9616295
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
17
10
2019
accepted:
15
12
2019
pubmed:
24
12
2019
medline:
3
7
2020
entrez:
24
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Compared to other esophageal cancers, clinical stage IA esophageal cancer generally has a good prognosis, although a subgroup of patients has a poor prognosis. Unfortunately, clinical diagnoses of invasion depth or lymph node metastasis are not always accurate, which make it difficult to identify patients with a high risk of postoperative recurrence using the tumor-node-metastasis staging system. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography may help guide the identification of malignant tumors and the evaluation of their malignant grade based on glucose metabolism. We aimed to evaluate the association between pre-operative fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography findings and the postoperative prognosis of patients with clinical stage IA esophageal cancer. This single-center retrospective study evaluated pre-esophagectomy fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography findings from 38 patients with clinical stage IA esophageal cancer. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic significance of the primary tumor having low and high SUVmax values (cut-off: 3.56). Overall survival (log-rank p = 0.034) and progression-free survival (log-rank p = 0.008) were significantly different between the groups with low SUVmax values (n = 18) and high SUVmax values (n = 20). Furthermore, the primary tumor's SUVmax value was related to pathological vascular invasion (p = 0.045) and distant metastasis (p = 0.042). The SUVmax of the primary tumor is a predictor of postoperative survival for clinical stage IA esophageal cancer. Thus, using fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography to evaluate the primary tumor's glucose metabolism may reflect the tumor's grade and potentially compensate for inaccuracies in tumor-node-metastasis staging.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Compared to other esophageal cancers, clinical stage IA esophageal cancer generally has a good prognosis, although a subgroup of patients has a poor prognosis. Unfortunately, clinical diagnoses of invasion depth or lymph node metastasis are not always accurate, which make it difficult to identify patients with a high risk of postoperative recurrence using the tumor-node-metastasis staging system. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography may help guide the identification of malignant tumors and the evaluation of their malignant grade based on glucose metabolism. We aimed to evaluate the association between pre-operative fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography findings and the postoperative prognosis of patients with clinical stage IA esophageal cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
This single-center retrospective study evaluated pre-esophagectomy fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography findings from 38 patients with clinical stage IA esophageal cancer. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic significance of the primary tumor having low and high SUVmax values (cut-off: 3.56).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall survival (log-rank p = 0.034) and progression-free survival (log-rank p = 0.008) were significantly different between the groups with low SUVmax values (n = 18) and high SUVmax values (n = 20). Furthermore, the primary tumor's SUVmax value was related to pathological vascular invasion (p = 0.045) and distant metastasis (p = 0.042).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The SUVmax of the primary tumor is a predictor of postoperative survival for clinical stage IA esophageal cancer. Thus, using fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography to evaluate the primary tumor's glucose metabolism may reflect the tumor's grade and potentially compensate for inaccuracies in tumor-node-metastasis staging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31867680
doi: 10.1007/s10147-019-01606-8
pii: 10.1007/s10147-019-01606-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
561-569Références
Ann Surg. 2008 Mar;247(3):434-9
pubmed: 18376186
Dis Esophagus. 1997 Jul;10(3):155-8
pubmed: 9280071
Am J Surg. 2006 Feb;191(2):250-4
pubmed: 16442955
Esophagus. 2019 Jan;16(1):1-24
pubmed: 30171413
J Thorac Dis. 2018 Dec;10(12):6846-6853
pubmed: 30746230
Dis Esophagus. 2008;21(2):144-50
pubmed: 18269650
World J Surg. 2012 May;36(5):1089-95
pubmed: 22374537
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Aug;22(8):2599-607
pubmed: 25524011
Jpn J Cancer Res. 2002 Mar;93(3):305-12
pubmed: 11927013
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct;39(10):686-9
pubmed: 19703839
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 May;20(5):1646-52
pubmed: 23238695
J Gastroenterol. 2016 Aug;51(8):788-95
pubmed: 26671045
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Nov;23(12):4086-4092
pubmed: 27352201
Esophagus. 2017;14(1):1-36
pubmed: 28111535
Eur J Nucl Med. 1996 Dec;23(12):1641-74
pubmed: 8929320
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 1;21(3):428-32
pubmed: 12560430
Ann Surg. 2005 Oct;242(4):566-73; discussion 573-5
pubmed: 16192817
Dis Esophagus. 2008;21(3):236-40
pubmed: 18430105
J Nucl Med. 2007 Aug;48(8):1251-8
pubmed: 17631554
Cancer Med. 2018 Aug;7(8):3604-3610
pubmed: 29953743
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):148-56
pubmed: 15558794
Dis Esophagus. 2010 Jul;23(5):398-407
pubmed: 19903192
Dis Esophagus. 2018 Jul 1;31(7):
pubmed: 29267962
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Nov;15(11):3278-88
pubmed: 18726651
Cancer. 2002 Feb 15;94(4):921-8
pubmed: 11920459
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Jan;15(1):104-16
pubmed: 17891442
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;26(9):2874-2881
pubmed: 31209674
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;108(4):544-51
pubmed: 23399555
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2019 Jun;50(2):292-297
pubmed: 29435906
Ann Surg. 2001 Mar;233(3):300-9
pubmed: 11224616
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Feb;21(2):575-82
pubmed: 24201746
Int J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug;24(8):927-933
pubmed: 30863993
Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Dec;68(6):1066-72
pubmed: 18620345
Ann Surg. 2016 Dec;264(6):1009-1015
pubmed: 27420375
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Oct;102(4):1132-9
pubmed: 27319990
Ann Surg. 2019 Dec;270(6):1090-1095
pubmed: 29727327
Pathol Int. 2008 May;58(5):282-7
pubmed: 18429826
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 20;28(9):1566-72
pubmed: 20177025
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jan;19(1):68-74
pubmed: 21879261
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Jul 8;67(4):304-317
pubmed: 28556024