Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer: PET response criteria in solid tumors versus response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 872-880

  Yanagawa, Masahiro ^a   Tatsumi, Mitsuaki ^a   Miyata, Hiroshi ^a   Morii, Eiichi ^a   Tomiyama, Noriyuki ^a   Watabe, Tadashi ^a   Isohashi, Kayako ^a   Kato, Hiroki ^a   Shimosegawa, Eku ^a   Yamasaki, Makoto ^a   Mori, Masaki ^a   Doki, Yuichiro ^a   Hatazawa, Jun ^a  

^a OSAKA UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

18F FDG PET; Esophageal cancer; PERCIST; RECIST; Response to therapy

Indexed keywords

CISPLATIN; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTINUOUS INFUSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG RESPONSE; ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; ESOPHAGUS RESECTION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PET RESPONSE CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

AGED; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS;

EID: 84861872570     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.098699     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer. 1976;38:388-394.
2. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207-214. (Pubitemid 11167383)
3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
4. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
5. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR. 2004;183:1619-1628. (Pubitemid 44210530)
6. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753-1759. (Pubitemid 46797957)
7. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, et al. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1760-1764. (Pubitemid 46797958)
8. Van den Abbeele AD. The lessons of GIST: PET and PET/CT-a new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist. 2008;13(suppl 2):8-13.
9. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378-390.
10. Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009;115:616-623.
11. Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4442-4445. (Pubitemid 41185107)
12. Rosner GL, Stadler W, Ratain MJ. Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4478-4484. (Pubitemid 35334760)
13. Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:409-414.
14. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:122S-150S.
15. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. International Union Against Cancer (UICC), TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons; 2002.
16. Matsuyama J, Doki Y, Yasuda T, et al. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on lymph node micrometastases in squamous cell carcinomas of the thoracic esophagus. Surgery. 2007;141:570-580. (Pubitemid 46616931)
17. Morgan DJ, Bray KM. Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage: implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994;26:292-307. (Pubitemid 24116207)
18. Miyata H, Yoshioka A, Yamasaki M, et al. Tumor budding in tumor invasive front predicts prognosis and survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 2009;115:3324-3334.
19. Chang F, Deere H, Mahadeva U, George S. Histopathologic examination and reporting of esophageal carcinomas following preoperative neoadjuvant therapy: practical guidelines and current issues. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129:252-262. (Pubitemid 352029316)
20. Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, et al. Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2310-2317. (Pubitemid 46218723)
21. Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouche O, et al. Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1160-1168. (Pubitemid 46640561)
22. 18F]-fluoro-D-glucose for response monitoring in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer: a comparison of different analytical methods. Mol Imaging Biol. 2003;5:337-346.
23. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:797-805. (Pubitemid 47308659)
24. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery. 2010;148:908-918.
25. 18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2006;243:472-478.
26. Blackstock AW, Farmer MR, Lovato J, et al. A prospective evaluation of the impact of 18-F-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography staging on survival for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:455-460. (Pubitemid 43083432)
27. Rizk NP, Tang L, Adusumilli PS, et al. Predictive value of initial FDG-PETSUVmax in patients with locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:875-879.
28. Swisher SG, Erasmus J, Maish M, et al. 2-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging is predictive of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1776-1785. (Pubitemid 39314740)
29. 18F-fluorodeoxiglucose positron emission tomography for the evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response in esophageal cancer: systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg. 2009;250:247-254.
30. Roedl JB, Colen RR, Holalkere NS, Fischman AJ, Choi NC, Blake MA. Adenocarcinomas of the esophagus: response to chemoradiotherapy is associated with decrease of metabolic tumor volume as measured on FDG-PET-CT: comparison to histopathologic and clinical response evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89:278-286.
31. Roedl JB, Halpern EF, Colen RR, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Blake MA. Metabolic tumor width parameters as determined on FDG-PET/CT predict disease-free survival and treatment response in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:54-60.
32. Sepesi B, Raymond DP, Polomsky M, et al. Does the value of FDG-PET-CT extend beyond pretreatment staging? An analysis of survival in surgical patients with esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:2121-2127.
33. McLoughlin JM, Melis M, Siegel EM, et al. Are patients with esophageal cancer who become FDG-PET negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiation free of cancer? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:879-886. (Pubitemid 351620864)
34. Schmidt M, Bollschweiler E, Dietlein M, et al. Mean and maximum standardized uptake values in [18F]FDG-FDG-PET for assessment of histopathological response in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma after radio-chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:735-744.
35. 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.
36. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507. (Pubitemid 43200300)
37. Sloof GW. Response monitoring of neoadjuvant therapy using CT, EUS, and FDG-PET. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;20:941-957. (Pubitemid 44391342)