Tumor lesion glycolysis and tumor lesion proliferation for response prediction and prognostic differentiation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1058-1064

  Kahraman, Deniz ^a,b   Holstein, Arne ^a,b   Scheffler, Matthias ^a,b   Zander, Thomas ^a,b   Nogova, Lucia ^a,b   Lammertsma, Adriaan A ^c   Boellaard, Ronald ^c   Neumaier, Bernd ^d   Dietlein, Markus ^a,b   Wolf, Jürgen ^a,b   Kobe, Carsten ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b University of Cologne   (Germany)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

FDG PET; FLT PET; lung cancer; tumor lesion glycolysis; tumor lesion proliferation

Indexed keywords

3' FLUOROTHYMIDINE; ERLOTINIB; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; GLYCOLYSIS; HUMAN; LESIONS AND DEFECTS; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MALE; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PREDICTION; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; TUMOR LESION GLYCOLYSIS; TUMOR LESION PROLIFERATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; CELL PROLIFERATION; DIDEOXYNUCLEOSIDES; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GLYCOLYSIS; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; QUINAZOLINES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84867855513     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182639747     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50(suppl):122SY150S.
2. Benz MR, Herrmann K, Walter F, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring treatment responses to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1684-1689.
3. Mileshkin L, Hicks RJ, Hughes BG, et al. Changes in 18F- fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine positron emission tomography imaging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:3304-3315.
4. Zander T, Scheffler M, Nogova L, et al. Early prediction of nonprogression in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib by using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose and [(18)F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1701-1708.
5. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, 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.
6. Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1368-1376.
7. Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Zander T, et al. Quantitative Analysis of Response to Treatment with Erlotinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using 18F-FDG and 3'-Deoxy-3'-18F-Fluorothymidine PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52: 1871-1877.
8. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, et al. 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. (Pubitemid 47618506)
9. Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294-301. (Pubitemid 40562120)
10. 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.
11. Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(suppl):93SY100S.
12. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on (18)F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:27-38.
13. Gulec SA, Suthar RR, Barot TC, et al. The prognostic value of functional tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing 90- selective internal radiation therapy plus chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1289-1295.
14. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Pradier O, et al. Baseline 18F-FDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1595-1606.
15. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1191-1202.
16. Costelloe CM, Macapinlac HA, Madewell JE, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as an indicator of progression-free and overall survival in osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:340-347.
17. Hatt M, Cheze-le Rest C, van Baardwijk A, et al. Impact of tumor size and tracer uptake heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1690-1697.
18. Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, et al. Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumor delineation methods: a test-retest assessment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1550-1558.
19. Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, et al. Impact of [(18)F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38: 2136-2144.
20. Frings V, de Langen AJ, Smit EF, et al. Repeatability of metabolically active volume measurements with 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1870-1877.