Prognostic value of baseline [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters MTV, TLG and asphericity in an international multicenter cohort of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.
Chemoradiotherapy
/ mortality
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
/ metabolism
Follow-Up Studies
Glycolysis
Humans
International Agencies
Male
Middle Aged
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Positron-Emission Tomography
/ methods
Prognosis
Radiopharmaceuticals
/ metabolism
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Tumor Burden
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
07
05
2020
accepted:
14
07
2020
entrez:
31
7
2020
pubmed:
31
7
2020
medline:
25
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
[18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) parameters have shown prognostic value in nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC), mostly in monocenter studies. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of standard and novel PET parameters in a multicenter cohort of patients. The established PET parameters metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) as well as the novel parameter tumor asphericity (ASP) were evaluated in a retrospective multicenter cohort of 114 NPC patients with FDG-PET staging, treated with (chemo)radiation at 8 international institutions. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis with respect to overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), distant metastases-free survival (FFDM), and locoregional control (LRC) was performed for clinical and PET parameters. When analyzing metric PET parameters, ASP showed a significant association with EFS (p = 0.035) and a trend for OS (p = 0.058). MTV was significantly associated with EFS (p = 0.026), OS (p = 0.008) and LRC (p = 0.012) and TLG with LRC (p = 0.019). TLG and MTV showed a very high correlation (Spearman's rho = 0.95), therefore TLG was subesequently not further analysed. Optimal cutoff values for defining high and low risk groups were determined by maximization of the p-value in univariate Cox regression considering all possible cutoff values. Generation of stable cutoff values was feasible for MTV (p<0.001), ASP (p = 0.023) and combination of both (MTV+ASP = occurrence of one or both risk factors, p<0.001) for OS and for MTV regarding the endpoints OS (p<0.001) and LRC (p<0.001). In multivariable Cox (age >55 years + one binarized PET parameter), MTV >11.1ml (hazard ratio (HR): 3.57, p<0.001) and ASP > 14.4% (HR: 3.2, p = 0.031) remained prognostic for OS. MTV additionally remained prognostic for LRC (HR: 4.86 p<0.001) and EFS (HR: 2.51 p = 0.004). Bootstrapping analyses showed that a combination of high MTV and ASP improved prognostic value for OS compared to each single variable significantly (p = 0.005 and p = 0.04, respectively). When using the cohort from China (n = 57 patients) for establishment of prognostic parameters and all other patients for validation (n = 57 patients), MTV could be successfully validated as prognostic parameter regarding OS, EFS and LRC (all p-values <0.05 for both cohorts). In this analysis, PET parameters were associated with outcome of NPC patients. MTV showed a robust association with OS, EFS and LRC. Our data suggest that combination of MTV and ASP may potentially further improve the risk stratification of NPC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32730364
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236841
pii: PONE-D-20-13504
pmc: PMC7392321
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0236841Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Amthauer reports personal fees from SIRTEX Medical Europe, grants from GE Healthcare, grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work; All other authors have declared that no competing interests exist. We ensure that Dr Amthauer´s fees and grants do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Sep;96(37):e8084
pubmed: 28906411
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):64-80
pubmed: 31178151
EJNMMI Res. 2016 Dec;6(1):53
pubmed: 27334609
Cancer Invest. 2012 Aug;30(7):528-36
pubmed: 22668086
World J Nucl Med. 2017 Jan-Mar;16(1):33-38
pubmed: 28217017
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan 13;12(1):15
pubmed: 28587681
Radiol Med. 2019 May;124(5):414-421
pubmed: 30560502
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Nov;17(11):1509-1520
pubmed: 27686945
Nuklearmedizin. 2012;51(1):9-16
pubmed: 22027997
PeerJ. 2016 May 24;4:e2057
pubmed: 27257542
J Digit Imaging. 2013 Dec;26(6):1045-57
pubmed: 23884657
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1124-1135
pubmed: 31150573
EJNMMI Res. 2013 Nov 23;3(1):77
pubmed: 24267032
Clin Invest Med. 2017 Feb 19;40(1):E1-E12
pubmed: 28218577
Sci Data. 2018 Sep 04;5:180173
pubmed: 30179230
EJNMMI Res. 2014 Apr 03;4(1):18
pubmed: 24693879
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jan 08;10:4
pubmed: 25566697
Nucl Med Commun. 2011 Nov;32(11):989-96
pubmed: 21862944
Radiol Med. 2017 Nov 25;:
pubmed: 29177728
Med Phys. 2013 Aug;40(8):082503
pubmed: 23927348
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 31;7(1):10117
pubmed: 28860628
J Nucl Med. 2015 Aug;56(8):1150-6
pubmed: 26089549
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(7):1485-1494
pubmed: 30949816
Int J Cancer. 2020 Sep 1;147(5):1427-1436
pubmed: 32010957
Eur Radiol. 2014 Sep;24(9):2077-87
pubmed: 24965509
Oncotarget. 2017 May 16;8(20):33884-33896
pubmed: 27980228
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Mar;42(3):429-37
pubmed: 25416633
Oral Oncol. 2015 Apr;51(4):363-9
pubmed: 25655559
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jan 15;20(1):37
pubmed: 31941465
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jul 7;62(13):5327-5343
pubmed: 28604368
Tumour Biol. 2017 Jul;39(7):1010428317717843
pubmed: 28671052
J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;36(10):1836-9
pubmed: 7562051