Is FDG-PET suitable for evaluating neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer? Evidence with systematic review of the literature

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 101, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 486-494

  Rebollo Aguirre, Ángel C ^a   Ramos Font, Carlos ^a   Portero, Román Villegas ^b   Cook, Gary J R ^c   Elvira, José Manuel Llamas ^a   Tabares, Antonio Romero ^b  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO VIRGEN DE LAS NIEVES   (Spain)

^b Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment Spain   (Spain)

^c ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Neoadjuvant therapy; Non small cell lung cancer; Positron emission tomography; Prospective trials; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CARBOPLATIN; CELECOXIB; CISPLATIN; DOCETAXEL; EPIRUBICIN; ETOPOSIDE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROURACIL; GEMCITABINE; GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; IFOSFAMIDE; IRINOTECAN; NAVELBINE; PACLITAXEL; PLATINUM DERIVATIVE; VINBLASTINE; VINDESINE;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG RESPONSE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION RESPONSE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; LUNG NEOPLASMS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 77950834202     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.21525     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alberg JA, Ford JG, Same JM: Epidemiology of lung cancer. ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 2007;132:29S-55S.
2. Schrump DS, Altorki NK, Henschke CL, et al.: Non-small cell lung cancer. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer principles and practice of oncology, 7th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &Wilkins; 2005. pp 753-810.
3. Scott WJ, Howington J, Feigenberg S, et al.: Treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer stage I and stage II: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 2007;132:234S-242S. (Pubitemid 47502810)
4. Robinson LA, Ruckdeschel JC, Wagner H, et al.: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer-stage IIIA ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 2007;132:243S-265S.
5. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, et al.: Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1304-1309.
6. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al.: Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: Review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1773-1782.
7. Gwyter SJ: Current standards for response evaluation by imaging techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:S11-S15. (Pubitemid 44139188)
8. Juweid ME, Cheson BD: Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;354:496-507. (Pubitemid 43200300)
9. Weber WA: PET for response assessment in oncology: Radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Br J Radiol 2005;28:42-49. (Pubitemid 43154235)
10. Schwaiger M, Peschel C: Biological imaging for selecting and monitoring cancer therapy; a pathway to individualised therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:S1-S5. (Pubitemid 44139186)
11. Bidwell S, Jensen MF: Chapter 3: Using a search protocol to identify sources of information: The COSI model. In: Topfer LA, Auston I, editors. Etext on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Information Resources [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine, National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology; 2003. URL: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ archive//2060905/nichsr/ehta/ehta.html [accessed October 29, 2008].
12. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al.: The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25-37.
13. Whiting PF, Westwood ME, Rutjes AWS, et al.: Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:9-16.
14. Schelbert RS, Hoh CK, Royal HD, et al.: Society of nuclear medicine procedure guideline for tumor imaging using F-18 FDG, version 2.0 [SNM Web site], 1999. Available at http://interactive.snm.org/index.cfm? PageID5772&RPID5969.
15. Bombardieri E, Aktolun C, Baum RP, et al.: European Association of Nuclear Medicine FDG-PET procedure guidelines for tumor imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30: BP115-BP124.
16. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, et al.: Society of Nuclear Medicine procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006;47:885-895.
17. García Garzón JR, Rodríguez A, Cabrera A: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with 18F-FDG. PETWorking Group. Procedures Committee of the Spanish Society of Nuclear Medicine. Rev Esp Med Nucl 2009;28:85-89.
18. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al.: Meta-DiSc: A software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:31. (Pubitemid 44285240)
19. Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, et al.: Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: Systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2004;5:531-540. (Pubitemid 39194041)
20. Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Mukherjee S, et al.: Positron emission tomography scanning with 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose as a predictor of response of neoadjuvant treatment for non-small cell carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:938-944. (Pubitemid 36457517)
21. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ojha B: Restaging patients with N2 (stage IIIa) non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:1229-1235. (Pubitemid 43792421)
22. Choi NC, Fischman AJ, Niemierko A, et al.: Dose-response relationship between probability of pathologic tumor control and glucose metabolic rate measured with FDG PET after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-smallcell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:1024-1035. (Pubitemid 35292613)
23. de Leyn P, Stroobants S, De Wever W, et al.: Prospective comparative study of integrated positron emission tomographycomputed tomography scan compared with remediastinoscopy in the assessment of residual mediastinal lymph node disease after induction chemotherapy for mediastinoscopy-proven stage IIIAN2 non-small-cell lung cancer: A Leuven Lung Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3333-3339. (Pubitemid 46638886)
24. Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, et al.: Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8362-8370. (Pubitemid 46264010)
25. Ohtsuka T, Nomori H, Ebihara A, et al.: FDG-PET imaging for lymph node staging and pathologic tumor response after neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;12:89-94.
26. Port JL, Kent MS, Korst RJ, et al.: Positron emission tomography scanning poorly predicts response to preoperative chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:254-259. (Pubitemid 38130021)
27. Ryu JS, Choi NC, Fischman AJ, et al.: FDG-PET in staging and restaging non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Correlation with histopathology. Lung Cancer 2002;35:179-187. (Pubitemid 34136096)
28. Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Monden T, et al.: Correlation of FDG-PET findings with histopathology in the assessment of response to induction chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:140-147. (Pubitemid 43152880)
29. Delgado M: heterogeneity studies. Cap 5. In: Delgado M, Llorca J, editors. Methodology in health investigation. Systematic reviews of studies. Meta-analysis. Barcelona: Signo; 2003. pp. 103-116.
30. de Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, et al.: Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: A systematic review. Cancer 2007;110:1654-1664.
31. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, et al.: Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1304-1309.
32. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al.: Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute trials. J Nucl Med 2006;47:1059-1066. (Pubitemid 46939960)
33. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, et al.: Repeat 18F-FDG PET for monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2007;55:165-171. (Pubitemid 46074221)
34. de Geus-Oei1 LF, van der Heijden HFM, Visser1 EP, et al.: Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2007;48: 1592-1598. (Pubitemid 47572705)
35. Poettgen C, Theegarten D, Eberhardt W, et al.: Correlation of PET/CT findings and histopathology after neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology 2007;73:316-323. (Pubitemid 351862022)
36. Decoster L, Schallier D, Everaertb H, et al.: Complete metabolic tumour response, assessed by 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET), after induction chemotherapy predicts a favourable outcome in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2008;62:55-61.