CT versus FDG-PET/CT response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab

Cancer Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1294-1301

  Skougaard, Kristin ^a   Johannesen, Helle Hjorth ^b   Nielsen, Dorte ^a   Schou, Jakob Vasehus ^a   Jensen, Benny Vittrup ^a   Høgdall, Estrid V S ^a   Hendel, Helle Westergren ^a  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b Mental Health Center Glostrup   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer; KRAS; PERCIST; PET CT; RECIST; Response evaluation; Survival

Indexed keywords

BEVACIZUMAB; CETUXIMAB; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IOHEXOL; IRINOTECAN; SUNITINIB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CAMPTOTHECIN; KRAS PROTEIN, HUMAN; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; ONCOPROTEIN; RAS PROTEIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PALLIATIVE THERAPY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SOFTWARE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; ONCOGENE K RAS; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VERY ELDERLY; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DISEASE COURSE; GENETICS; METASTASIS; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL, HUMANIZED; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CAMPTOTHECIN; CETUXIMAB; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS; RAS PROTEINS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84991494341     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20457634     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.271     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Weber, W. A. 2009. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 50(Suppl. 1):1S-10S.
2. Michalski, M. H., and X. Chen. 2011. Molecular imaging in cancer treatment. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 38:358-377.
3. Therasse, P., S. G. Arbuck, E. A. Eisenhauer, J. Wanders, R. S. Kaplan, L. Rubinstein, et al. 2000. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92:205-216.
4. De Geus-Oei, L. F., D. Vriens, H. W. Van Laarhoven, W. T. van der Graaf, and W. J. Oyen. 2009. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J. Nucl. Med. 50(Suppl. 1):43S-54S.
5. Figueiras, R. G., V. Goh, A. R. Padhani, A. B. Naveira, A. G. Caamaño, and C. V. Martin. 2010. The role of functional imaging in colorectal cancer. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 195:54-66.
6. Herbertson, R. A., A. F. Scarsbrook, S. T. Lee, N. Tebbutt, and A. M. Scott. 2009. Established, emerging and future roles of PET/CT in the management of colorectal cancer. Clin. Radiol. 64:225-237.
7. De Maeseneer, D. J., B. Lambert, V. Surmont, K. Geboes, and S. W. H. Rottey. 2010. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a tool for response prediction in solid tumours. Acta Clin. Belg. 65:291-299.
8. Van den Abbeele, A. D. 2008. The lessons of GIST-PET and PET/CT: a new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist 13(Suppl. 2):8-13.
9. De Geus-Oei, L. F., H. W. Van Laarhoven, E. P. Visser, R. Hermsen, B. A. Van Hoorn, Y. J. Kamm, et al. 2008. Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 19:348-352.
10. De Geus-Oei, L. F., H. F. van der Heijden, E. P. Visser, R. Hermsen, B. A. van Hoorn, J. N. Timmer-Bonte, et al. 2007. Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 48:1592-1598.
11. Monteil, J., N. Mahmoudi, S. Leobon, P. Y. Roudaut, A. El Badaoui, S. Verbeke, et al. 2009. Chemotherapy response evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer with FDG PET/CT and CT scans. Anticancer Res. 29:2563-2568.
12. Revheim, M. E., A. K. Winge-Main, G. Hagen, J. G. Fjeld, S. D. Fosså, and W. Lilleby. 2011. Combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography in sunitinib therapy assessment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol.) 23:339-343.
13. Benz, M. R., K. Herrmann, F. Walter, E. B. Garon, K. L. Reckamp, R. Figlin, et al. 2011. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring treatment responses to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib. J. Nucl. Med. 52:1684-1689.
14. Desar, I. M. E., C. M. van Herpen, H. W. van Laarhoven, J. O. Barentsz, W. J. Oyen, W. T. van der Graaf, et al. 2009. molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapy. Cancer Treat. Rev. 35:309-321.
15. Milano, A., F. Perri, A. Ciarmiello, and F. Caponigro. 2011. Targeted-therapy and imaging response: a new paradigm for clinical evaluation? Rev. Recent Clin. Trials 6:259-265.
16. Figueiras, R. G., A. R. Padhani, V. J. Goh, J. C. Vilanova, S. B. González, C. V. Martín, et al. 2011. Novel oncologic drugs: what they do and how they affect images. Radiographics 31:2059-2091.
17. Van Schaeybroeck, S., W. L. Allen, R. C. Turkington, and P. G. Johnston. 2011. Implementing prognostic and predictive biomarkers in CRC clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8:222-232.
18. Saif, M. W., and M. Shah. 2009. K-ras mutations in colorectal cancer: a practice changing discovery. Clin. Adv. Hematol. Oncol. 7:64.
19. Wahl, R. L., H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. A. Lodge. 2009. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 50(Suppl. 1):122S-150S.
20. Cross, J. 2008. DxS Ltd. Pharmacogenomics 9:463-467.
21. Kotoula, V., E. Charalambous, B. Biesmans, A. Malousi, E. Vrettou, G. Fountzilas, et al. 2009. Targeted KRAS mutation assessment on patient tumor histologic material in real time diagnostics. PLoS ONE 4:e7746.
22. Larsen, F. O., P. Pfeiffer, D. Nielsen, K. Skougaard, C. Qvortrup, K. Vistisen, et al. 2011. Bevacizumab in combination with cetuximab and irinotecan after failure of cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 50:574-577.
23. Spindler, K. L., N. Pallisgaard, J. Lindebjerg, S. K. Frifeldt, and A. Jakobsen. 2011. EGFR related mutational status and association to clinical outcome of third-line cetuximab-irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 11:107.
24. Cunningham, D., Y. Humblet, S. Siena, D. Khayat, H. Bleiberg, A. Santoro, et al. 2004. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:337-345.
25. Contractor, K. B., and E. O. Aboagye. 2009. Monitoring predominantly cytostatic treatment response with 18F-FDG PET. J. Nucl. Med. 50(Suppl. 1):97S-105S.
26. Lenz, H. J., E. Van Cutsem, S. Khambata-Ford, R. J. Mayer, P. Gold, P. Stella, et al. 2006. Multicenter phase II and translational study of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal carcinoma refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidines. J. Clin. Oncol. 24:4914-4921.
27. Venook, A. P. 2005. Epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted treatment for advanced colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 103:2435-2446.
28. Therasse, P. 2002. Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean? Eur. J. Cancer 38:1817-1823.
29. Michaelis, L. C., and M. J. Ratain. 2006. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6:409-414.
30. Suzuki, C., H. Jacobsson, T. Hatschek, M. R. Torkzad, K. Bodén, Y. Eriksson-Alm, et al. 2008. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 28:329-344.
31. Herrmann, K., B. J. Krause, R. A. Bundschuh, T. Dechow, and M. Schwaiger. 2009. Monitoring response to therapeutic interventions in patients with cancer. Semin. Nucl. Med. 39:210-232.
32. Herrmann, K., M. R. Benz, B. J. Krause, K. L. Pomykala, A. K. Buck, and J. Czernin. 2011. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in evaluating response to therapy in solid tumors: where we are and where we can go. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 55:620-632.
33. Allen-Auerbach, M., and W. A. Weber. 2009. Measuring response with FDG-PET: methodological aspects. Oncologist 14:369-377.
34. Vriens, D., L. F. de Geus-Oei, W. T. van der Graaf, and W. J. Oyen. 2009. Tailoring therapy in colorectal cancer by PET-CT. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 53:224-244.
35. Young, H., R. Baum, U. Cremerius, K. Herholz, O. Hoekstra, A. A. Lammertsma, et al. 1999. 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 35:1773-1782.
36. Skougaard, K., D. Nielsen, B. V. Jensen, and H. W. Hendel. 2013. Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J. Nucl. Med. 54:1026-1031.
37. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, A., L. G. Strauss, C. Burger, A. Rühl, G. Irngartinger, W. Stremme l, et al. 2004. Prognostic aspects of 18 F-FDG PET kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy. J. Nucl. Med. 45:1480-1487.
38. Vriens, D., L. F. de Geus-Oei, H. W. van Laarhoven, J. N. Timmer-Bonte, P. F. Krabbe, E. P. Visser, et al. 2009. Evaluation of different normalization procedures for the calculation of the standardized uptake value in therapy response monitoring studies. Nucl. Med. Commun. 30:550-557.
39. Van Cutsem, E., C. H. Köhne, E. Hitre, J. Zaluski, C. R. Chang Chien, A. Makhson, et al. 2009. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360:1408-1417.
40. Karapetis, C. S., S. Khambata-Ford, D. J. Jonker, C. J. O'Callaghan, D. Tu, N. C. Tebbutt, et al. 2008. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359:1757-1765.