The analysis of factors affecting the threshold on repeated 18F-FDG-PET/CT investigations measured by the PERCIST protocol in patients with esophageal carcinoma

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 33, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1188-1194

  Fencl, Pavel ^a   Belohlavek, Otakar ^a   Harustiak, Tomas ^b   Zemanova, Milada ^c  

^a NA HOMOLCE HOSPITAL   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MOTOL   (Czech Republic)

^c CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

2 deoxy 2 18F fluoro D glucose; esophageal carcinoma; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; positron emission tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors; positron emission tomography computed tomography; reproducibility; threshold

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA; ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; ESOPHAGUS CARCINOMA; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; GLUCOSE METABOLISM; GLYCOLYSIS; HUMAN; LEAN BODY WEIGHT; LIVER PARENCHYMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT; BODY MASS INDEX; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; LIVER; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84866931535     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: 14735628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283573d0d     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Brücher BL,Weber W, Bauer M, Fink U, Avril N, Stein HJ, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg 2001; 33:300-309.
2. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, Helmberger H, Avril NE, Meisetschläger G, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3058-3065.
3. Wieder HA, Beer AJ, Lordick F, Ott K, Fischer M, Rummeny EJ, et al. Comparison of changes in tumor metabolic activity and tumor size during chemotherapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:2029-2034.
4. Levine EA, Farmer MR, Clark P, Mishra G, Ho C, Geisinger KR, et al. Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (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.
5. Krause BJ, Herrmann K, Wieder H, Meyer zum Büschenfelde C. 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessing response to therapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:89S-96S.
6. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:885-895.
7. Boellaard R, Oyen WJG, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35:2320-2333.
8. Lordic F, Ruers T, Aust DE, Collette L, Downey RJ, El Hajjam M, et al. European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) gastrointestinal group: workshop on the role of metabolic imaging in the neoadjuvant treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44:1807-1819.
9. 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.
10. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 1976; 38: 388-394.
11. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M,Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47:207-214.
12. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA,Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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.
13. Krak NC, Hoeven van der JJM, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JWR, Wall van der E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring (18F)FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytic methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:674-681.
14. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsm AA, 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.
15. Melton GB, Lavely WC, Jacene HA, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Wahl RL, Gearhart SL. Efficacy of preoperative combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography for assessing primary rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 8:961-969.
16. Francis RJ, Byrne MJ, van der Schaaf AA, Boucek JA, Nowak AK, Phillips M, et al. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy and survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma using a novel semiautomated 3-dimensional volumebased analysis of serial 18F-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1449-1458.
17. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, 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.
18. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004; 45:1519-1527.
19. Nakamoto Y, Zasadny KR, Minn H, Wahl RL. Reproducibility of common semi-quantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biol 2002; 4:171-178.
20. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:1771-1777.
21. Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:1804-1808.
22. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology 1995; 196:167-173.
23. Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med 2004; 45:784-788.
24. Adam L-E, Karp JS, Daube-Witherspoon ED, Smith RJ. Performance of a whole-body PET scanner using curve-plate NaI(TI) detectors. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:1821-1830.
25. Zasadny KR, Kison PV, Francis IR, Wahl RL. FDG-PET determination of metabolically active tumor volume and comparison with CT. Clin Positron Imaging 1998; 1:123-129.
26. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Descourt P, Dekker A, De Ruysscher D, Oellers M, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 2010; 77:301-308.
27. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009; 28:881-893.
28. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 30-deoxy-30-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med 2010; 51:1368-1376.
29. Pé rez-Ló pez B, Vega-Gonzá les IF, Estrado-Lobato E, Pé rez-Molina JJ, Torres-Mendoza BM, Medina LA. Volume-of-interest assessment of oncologic response using 18F-FDG PET/CT: a phantom study. J Nucl Med Technol 2011. pp. 14-48.