Total Lesion Glycolysis Assessment Identifies a Patient Fraction With a High Cure Rate Among Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Patients Treated With Definitive Chemoradiation.
Adenocarcinoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Cancer Care Facilities
Chemoradiotherapy
/ methods
Cohort Studies
Databases, Factual
Disease-Free Survival
Esophageal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Glycolysis
/ drug effects
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Logistic Models
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Invasiveness
/ pathology
Neoplasm Staging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Statistics, Nonparametric
Survival Analysis
Texas
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Tumor Burden
/ drug effects
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
7
2020
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
17
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to determine whether tumor metabolism could be prognostic of cure in L-EAC patients who receive definitive chemoradiation. Patients with inoperable localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) often receive definitive chemoradiation; however, biomarkers and/or imaging variables to prognosticate cure are missing. Two hundred sixty-six patients with L-EAC who had chemoradiation but not surgery were analyzed from the prospectively maintained EAC databases in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Texas, USA) between March 2002 and April 2015. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from the positron emission tomography data were evaluated. Of 266 patients, 253 (95%) were men; the median age was 67 years (range 20-91 yrs) and 153 had poorly differentiated L-EAC. The median SUVmax was 10.3 (range 0-87) and the median TLG was 85.7 (range 0-3227). Both SUVmax and TLG were higher among those with: tumors >5 cm in length, high clinical stage, and high tumor and node categories by TNM staging (all P < 0.0001). Of 234 patients evaluable for cure, 60 (25.6%) achieved cure. In the multivariable logistic regression model, low TLG (but not low SUVmax) was associated with cure (continuous TLG value: odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.92). TLG was quantified into 4 quartile categorical variables; first quartile (Q1; <32), second quartile (Q2; 32.0-85.6), third quartile (Q3; 85.6-228.4), and fourth quartile (Q4; >228.4); the cure rate was only 10.3% in Q4 and 5.1% in Q3 but increased to 28.8% in Q2, and 58.6% in Q1. The cross-validation resulted in an average accuracy of prediction score of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). In this cross-validated model, 59% of patients in the 1st quartile were cured following definitive chemoradiation. Baseline TLG could be pursued as one of the tools for esophageal preservation.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to determine whether tumor metabolism could be prognostic of cure in L-EAC patients who receive definitive chemoradiation.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
Patients with inoperable localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) often receive definitive chemoradiation; however, biomarkers and/or imaging variables to prognosticate cure are missing.
METHODS
Two hundred sixty-six patients with L-EAC who had chemoradiation but not surgery were analyzed from the prospectively maintained EAC databases in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Texas, USA) between March 2002 and April 2015. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from the positron emission tomography data were evaluated.
RESULTS
Of 266 patients, 253 (95%) were men; the median age was 67 years (range 20-91 yrs) and 153 had poorly differentiated L-EAC. The median SUVmax was 10.3 (range 0-87) and the median TLG was 85.7 (range 0-3227). Both SUVmax and TLG were higher among those with: tumors >5 cm in length, high clinical stage, and high tumor and node categories by TNM staging (all P < 0.0001). Of 234 patients evaluable for cure, 60 (25.6%) achieved cure. In the multivariable logistic regression model, low TLG (but not low SUVmax) was associated with cure (continuous TLG value: odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.92). TLG was quantified into 4 quartile categorical variables; first quartile (Q1; <32), second quartile (Q2; 32.0-85.6), third quartile (Q3; 85.6-228.4), and fourth quartile (Q4; >228.4); the cure rate was only 10.3% in Q4 and 5.1% in Q3 but increased to 28.8% in Q2, and 58.6% in Q1. The cross-validation resulted in an average accuracy of prediction score of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86).
CONCLUSIONS
In this cross-validated model, 59% of patients in the 1st quartile were cured following definitive chemoradiation. Baseline TLG could be pursued as one of the tools for esophageal preservation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32675544
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003228
pii: 00000658-202008000-00064
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
311-318Références
Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, et al. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3:524–548.
Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Lindgren A, et al. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:825–831.
Ajani JA, D’Amico TA, Almhanna K, et al. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13:194–227.
van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:2074–2084.
Swisher SG, Moughan J, Komaki RU, et al. Final results of NRG oncology RTOG 0246: an organ-preserving selective resection strategy in esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12:368–374.
Findlay JM, Gillies RS, Franklin JM, et al. Restaging oesophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with (18)F-FDG PET-CT: identifying interval metastases and predicting incurable disease at surgery. Eur Radiol 2016; 26:3519–3533.
Bollschweiler E, Holscher AH, Schmidt M, et al. Neoadjuvant treatment for advanced esophageal cancer: response assessment before surgery and how to predict response to chemoradiation before starting treatment. Chin J Cancer Res 2015; 27:221–230.
Zhu W, Xing L, Yue J, et al. Prognostic significance of SUV on PET/CT in patients with localised oesophagogastric junction cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2012; 85:e694–701.
Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 1999; 2:159–171.
van Rossum PS, Fried DV, Zhang L, et al. The incremental value of subjective and quantitative assessment of 18F-FDG PET for the prediction of pathologic complete response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2016; 57:691–700.
Hatt M, Visvikis D, Pradier O, et al. Baseline (1)(8)F-FDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38:1595–1606.
Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017.
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:9067–9072.
Ajani JA, Komaki R, Putnam JB, et al. A three-step strategy of induction chemotherapy then chemoradiation followed by surgery in patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Cancer 2001; 92:279–286.
Ajani JA, Xiao L, Roth JA, et al. A phase II randomized trial of induction chemotherapy versus no induction chemotherapy followed by preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2844–2849.
Sudo K, Xiao L, Wadhwa R, et al. Importance of surveillance and success of salvage strategies after definitive chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:3400–3405.
Taketa T, Correa AM, Suzuki A, et al. Outcome of trimodality-eligible esophagogastric cancer patients who declined surgery after preoperative chemoradiation. Oncology 2012; 83:300–304.
Brieman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, et al. Classification and Regression Trees. Monterrey, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole; 1984.
Charalampakis N, Nogueras Gonzalez GM, Elimova E, et al. The proportion of signet ring cell component in patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma correlates with the degree of response to pre-operative chemoradiation. Oncology 2016; 90:239–247.
Wadhwa R, Wang X, Baladandayuthapani V, et al. Nuclear expression of Gli-1 is predictive of pathologic complete response to chemoradiation in trimodality treated oesophageal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2017; 117:648–655.
Monjazeb AM, Riedlinger G, Aklilu M, et al. Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer staged with [(1)(8)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET): can postchemoradiotherapy FDG-PET predict the utility of resection? J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:4714–4721.
Konski AA, Cheng JD, Goldberg M, et al. Correlation of molecular response as measured by 18-FDG positron emission tomography with outcome after chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69:358–363.
Ajani JA, Correa AM, Hofstetter WL, et al. Clinical parameters model for predicting pathologic complete response following preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Oncol 2012; 23:2638–2642.
Elimova E, Wang X, Etchebehere E, et al. 18-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission computed tomography as predictive of response after chemoradiation in oesophageal cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51:2545–2552.
Lin SH, Wang J, Allen PK, et al. A nomogram that predicts pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation also predicts survival outcomes after definitive chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 2015; 6:45–52.
Baksh K, Prithviraj G, Kim Y, et al. Correlation between standardized uptake value in preneoadjuvant and postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and tumor regression grade in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2018; 41:254–258.
Elliott JA, O’Farrell NJ, King S, et al. Value of CT-PET after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the prediction of histological tumour regression, nodal status and survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2014; 101:1702–1711.
Heneghan HM, Donohoe C, Elliot J, et al. Can CT-PET and endoscopic assessment post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy predict residual disease in esophageal cancer? Ann Surg 2016; 264:831–838.
Javeri H, Xiao L, Rohren E, et al. The higher the decrease in the standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography after chemoradiation, the better the survival of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2009; 115:5184–5192.
Kim SJ, Koo PJ, Chang S. Predictive value of repeated F-18 FDG PET/CT parameters changes during preoperative chemoradiotherapy to predict pathologic response and overall survival in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2016; 77:723–731.
Kukar M, Alnaji RM, Jabi F, et al. Role of repeat 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography examination in predicting pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg 2015; 150:555–562.
Piessen G, Petyt G, Duhamel A, et al. Ineffectiveness of (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of tumor response after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2013; 258:66–76.
Vallbohmer D, Holscher AH, Dietlein M, et al. [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography for the assessment of histopathologic response and prognosis after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2009; 250:888–894.
Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, Truong MT, et al. Preoperative chemo-radiation-induced ulceration in patients with esophageal cancer: a confounding factor in tumor response assessment in integrated computed tomographic-positron emission tomographic imaging. J Thorac Oncol 2006; 1:478–486.
Hautzel H, Muller-Gartner HW. Early changes in fluorine-18-FDG uptake during radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:1384–1386.
Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, et al. Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85-01). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. JAMA 1999; 281:1623–1627.
Shao MS, Wong AT, Schwartz D, et al. Definitive or preoperative chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer: patterns of care and survival outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101:2148–2154.
Naik KB, Liu Y, Goodman M, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery for patients with resectable esophageal cancer: an analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 2017; 123:3476–3485.
Xi M, Hallemeier CL, Merrell KW, et al. Recurrence risk stratification after preoperative chemoradiation of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2018; 268:289–295.
Charalampakis N, Xiao L, Elimova E, et al. Initial standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography influences the prognosis of patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma treated preoperatively. Oncology 2015; 89:305–310.
Alakus H, Batur M, Schmidt M, et al. Variable 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in gastric cancer is associated with different levels of GLUT-1 expression. Nucl Med Commun 2010; 31:532–538.
Lim JY, Yoon SO, Seol SY, et al. Overexpression of the M2 isoform of pyruvate kinase is an adverse prognostic factor for signet ring cell gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18:4037–4043.