Metabolic activity determines survival depending on the level of lymph node involvement in cervical cancer.
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
/ metabolism
Humans
Lymph Nodes
/ pathology
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ pathology
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Positron-Emission Tomography
Prognosis
Radiopharmaceuticals
/ metabolism
Retrospective Studies
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Locally advanced cervical cancer
Lymphatic metastasis
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Survival Analysis
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jul 2022
23 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
30
10
2021
accepted:
15
06
2022
entrez:
23
7
2022
pubmed:
24
7
2022
medline:
27
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the impact of PET/CT functional parameters on survival, locoregional, and distant failure according to the most distant level of lymph node [ Retrospective study including 148 patients with LACC treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy after PET/CT and para-aortic lymph node (PALN) surgical staging. Two senior nuclear medicine physicians reviewed all PET/CT exams and retrieved tumor and lymph node metabolic parameters: SUVmax, MTV, TLG. Oncological outcomes according to metabolic parameters and level of lymph node spread on PET/CT were assessed. In patients without lymph node uptake on PET/CT, high MTV values of the cervical tumor were associated with DFS (HR = 5.14 95%CI = [2.15-12.31]), OS (HR = 6.10 95%CI = [1.89-19.70]), and time to distant (HR = 4.73 95%CI = [1.55-14.44]) and locoregional recurrence (HR = 5.18 95%CI = [1.72-15.60]). In patients with pelvic lymph node (PLN) uptake but without PALN uptake on [ Cervical MTV is more accurate than SUVmax to predict survival outcome in patients with locoregional disease confined to the pelvis and should be implemented in routine clinical practice. Prognostic value of metabolic metrics disappears with PALN uptake, which is associated with distant failure in nearly half of patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess the impact of PET/CT functional parameters on survival, locoregional, and distant failure according to the most distant level of lymph node [
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective study including 148 patients with LACC treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy after PET/CT and para-aortic lymph node (PALN) surgical staging. Two senior nuclear medicine physicians reviewed all PET/CT exams and retrieved tumor and lymph node metabolic parameters: SUVmax, MTV, TLG. Oncological outcomes according to metabolic parameters and level of lymph node spread on PET/CT were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In patients without lymph node uptake on PET/CT, high MTV values of the cervical tumor were associated with DFS (HR = 5.14 95%CI = [2.15-12.31]), OS (HR = 6.10 95%CI = [1.89-19.70]), and time to distant (HR = 4.73 95%CI = [1.55-14.44]) and locoregional recurrence (HR = 5.18 95%CI = [1.72-15.60]). In patients with pelvic lymph node (PLN) uptake but without PALN uptake on [
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Cervical MTV is more accurate than SUVmax to predict survival outcome in patients with locoregional disease confined to the pelvis and should be implemented in routine clinical practice. Prognostic value of metabolic metrics disappears with PALN uptake, which is associated with distant failure in nearly half of patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35870900
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09785-w
pii: 10.1186/s12885-022-09785-w
pmc: PMC9308355
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
810Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jun 1;53(2):353-9
pubmed: 12023139
Cancer Sci. 2010 Jun;101(6):1471-9
pubmed: 20298252
Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;41(1):34-40
pubmed: 26505856
Ann Nucl Med. 2018 Dec;32(10):669-677
pubmed: 30101392
Acad Radiol. 2016 May;23(5):605-10
pubmed: 26853968
Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 28;8(52):90402-90412
pubmed: 29163839
J Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;61(10):1442-1447
pubmed: 32034109
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jun;19(6):1966-72
pubmed: 22124757
Hell J Nucl Med. 2016 Sep-Dec;19(3):254-268
pubmed: 27824966
Am J Clin Oncol. 2018 Dec;41(12):1225-1230
pubmed: 29782361
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 1;26(34):5654-5; author reply 5655-7
pubmed: 18981456
Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Oct;119(1):81-6
pubmed: 20580064
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Nov;91(2):326-31
pubmed: 14599862
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Jul;23(6):1104-10
pubmed: 23792605
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Mar;35(3):493-501
pubmed: 17955238
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 May;47(5):1252-1260
pubmed: 31915897
Cancer. 2010 Mar 15;116(6):1469-75
pubmed: 20108309
Med Oncol. 2013;30(2):558
pubmed: 23549865
Clin Nucl Med. 2018 Sep;43(9):e296-e303
pubmed: 30036243
Br J Radiol. 2018 Apr;91(1084):20170552
pubmed: 29293366
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):e212-20
pubmed: 22554549
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Feb;173:77-82
pubmed: 24275232
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S43-103
pubmed: 17161167
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Aug;18(8):2302-9
pubmed: 21347790
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5560-5577
pubmed: 32415584
Cancer. 2009 Aug 1;115(15):3548-54
pubmed: 19472399
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):1112-1121
pubmed: 30207790
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(7):1551-1559
pubmed: 30729273
Cancer. 2000 Apr 15;88(8):1883-91
pubmed: 10760766
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jan 11;9:48-60
pubmed: 29594251
Nucl Med Commun. 2010 Jun;31(6):526-31
pubmed: 20215979
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;110(8):1738-44
pubmed: 17786947
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Oct;44(11):1862-1869
pubmed: 28534183