Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 54, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1026-1031

  Skougaard, Kristin ^a   Nielsen, Dorte ^a   Jensen, Benny Vittrup ^a   Hendel, Helle Westergren ^a  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

EORTC criteria; PERCIST; PET CT; Response evaluation; Survival

Indexed keywords

CETUXIMAB; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IRINOTECAN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG RESPONSE; EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR RESEARCH AND TREATMENT OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METABOLIC DISORDER; METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PET SCANNER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY RESPONSE CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EORTC CRITERIA; PERCIST; PET/CT; RESPONSE EVALUATION; SURVIVAL;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL, HUMANIZED; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BONE NEOPLASMS; CAMPTOTHECIN; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DENMARK; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PREVALENCE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84879986931     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.111757     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allen-Auerbach M, Weber WA. Measuring response with FDG-PET: methodological aspects. Oncologist. 2009;14:369-377.
2. De Maeseneer DJ, Lambert B, Surmont V, Geboes K, Rottey SW. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a tool for response prediction in solid tumours. Acta Clin Belg. 2010;65:291-299.
3. Herbertson RA, Scarsbrook AF, Lee ST, Tebbutt N, Scott AM. Established, emerging and future roles of PET/CT in the management of colorectal cancer. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:225-237.
4. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480-508.
5. Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(suppl 1):27-37.
6. Figueiras RG, Goh V, Padhani AR, Naveira AB, Caamano AG, Martin CV. The role of functional imaging in colorectal cancer. AJR. 2010;195:54-66.
7. de Geus-Oei LF, Vriens D, van Laarhoven HW, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):43S-54S.
8. Monteil J, Mahmoudi N, Leobon S, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer with FDG PET/CT and CT scans. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:2563-2568.
9. Engels B, Everaert H, Gevaert T, et al. Phase II study of helical tomotherapy for oligometastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:362-368.
10. de Geus-Oei LF, van Laarhoven HW, Visser EP, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:348-352.
11. Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 (suppl 1):1S-10S.
12. Buckler AJ, Boellaard R. Standardization of quantitative imaging: the time is right, and 18F-FDG PET/CT is a good place to start. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:171-172.
13. Michalski MH, Chen X. Molecular imaging in cancer treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:358-377.
14. Desar IM, van Herpen CM, van Laarhoven HW, Barentsz JO, Oyen WJ, van der Graaf WT. Beyond RECIST: molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35:309-321.
15. Milano A, Perri F, Ciarmiello A, Caponigro F. Targeted-therapy and imaging response: a new paradigm for clinical evaluation? Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2011;6:259-265.
16. Van den Abbeele AD. The lessons of GIST-PET and PET/CT: a new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist. 2008;13(suppl 2):8-13.
17. 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. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
18. 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(suppl 1):122S-150S.
19. Huang EH, Heidt DG, Li CW, Simeone DM. Cancer stem cells: a new paradigm for understanding tumor progression and therapeutic resistance. Surgery. 2007;141:415-419.
20. Al-Hajj M, Becker MW, Wicha M, Weissman I, Clarke MF. Therapeutic implications of cancer stem cells. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14:43-47.
21. 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.
22. Engles JM, Quarless SA, Mambo E, Ishimori T, Cho SY, Wahl RL. Stunning and its effect on 3H-FDG uptake and key gene expression in breast cancer cells undergoing chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:603-608.
23. Akhurst T, Kates TJ, Mazumdar M, et al. Recent chemotherapy reduces the sensitivity of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8713-8716.
24. Bjurberg M, Abedinpour P, Brun E, et al. Early metabolic flare in squamous cell carcinoma after chemotherapy is a marker of treatment sensitivity in vitro. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;44:165-169.
25. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181-200.
26. 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.
27. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579-586.
28. Cheson BD. Role of functional imaging in the management of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1844-1854.
29. 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.
30. Contractor KB, Aboagye EO. Monitoring predominantly cytostatic treatment response with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):97S-105S.
31. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847-850.
32. Kim CK, Gupta NC, Chandramouli B, Alavi A. Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:164-167.
33. 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.
34. Krak NC, Van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, van der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring [18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:674-681.
35. 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.
36. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521-525.
37. Shankar LK, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Benjamin R, Scheutze S, Fitzgerald TJ. Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:1891-1897.
38. Herrmann K, Benz MR, Krause BJ, Pomykala KL, Buck AK, Czernin J. 18FFDG- PET/CT in evaluating response to therapy in solid tumors: where we are and where we can go. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:620-632.
39. Skougaard K, McCullagh MJ, Nielsen D, Hendel HW, Jensen BV, Johannesen HH. Observer variability in a phase II trial: assessing consistency in RECIST application. Acta Oncol. 2012;51:774-780.