Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Metabolic and Anatomic Response to Chemotherapy Based on PERCIST and RECIST in Patients with Advanced Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Ordu, Cetin (Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Bilim University) ;
  • Selcuk, Nalan A. (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Yeditepe University Hospital) ;
  • Akosman, Cengiz (Medical Oncology Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeditepe University Hospital) ;
  • Eren, Orhan Onder (Medical Oncology Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeditepe University Hospital) ;
  • Altunok, Elif C. (Department of Biostatistics, Yeditepe University Hospital) ;
  • Toklu, Turkay (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Yeditepe University Hospital) ;
  • Oyan, Basak (Medical Oncology Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeditepe University Hospital)
  • Published : 2015.02.04
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the prognostic role of metabolic response to chemotherapy, determined by FDG-PET, in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with metastatic NSCLC were analyzed for prognostic factors related to overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Disease evaluation was conducted with FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT prior to and at the end of first-line chemotherapy. Response evaluation of 19 of 30 patients was also performed after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy. Morphological and metabolic responses were assessed according to RECIST and PERCIST, respectively. Results: The median OS and PFS were 11 months and 6.2 months, respectively. At the end of first-line chemotherapy, 10 patients achieved metabolic and anatomic responses. Of the 19 patients who had an interim response analysis after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy, 3 achieved an anatomic response, while 9 achieved a metabolic response. In univariate analyses, favorable prognostic factors for OS were number of cycles of first-line chemotherapy, and achieving a response to chemotherapy at completion of therapy according to the PERCIST and RECIST. The OS of patients with a metabolic response after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy was also significantly extended. Anatomic response at interim analysis did not predict OS, probably due to few patients with anatomic response. In multivariate analyses, metabolic response after completion of therapy was an independent prognostic factor for OS. Conclusions: Metabolic response is at least as effective as anatomic response in predicting survival. Metabolic response may be an earlier predictive factor for treatment response and OS in NSCLC patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Azzoli CG, Temin S, Aliff T, et al (2011). Focused update of 2009 American society of clinical oncology American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol, 29, 3825-31. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2774
  2. Birchard KR, Hoang JK, Herndon JE Jr, et al (2009). Early changes in tumor size in patients treated for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer do not correlate with survival. Cancer, 115, 581-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24060
  3. Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Bryant AS, et al (2004). The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PET alone for the staging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg, 78, 1017-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.02.067
  4. De Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Visser EP, et al (2007). Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med, 48, 1592-98. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.043414
  5. Ding Q, Cheng X, Yang L, et al (2014). PET/CT evaluation of response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) versus response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). J Thorac Dis, 6, 677-83.
  6. Dwamena BA, Sonnad SS, Angobaldo JO, et al (1999). Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: Mediastinal staging in the 1990s-meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology, 213, 530-36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv46530
  7. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer, 45, 228-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
  8. Hasbek Z, Yucel B, Salk I, et al (2014). Potential impact of atelectasis and primary tumor glycolysis on F-18 FDG PET/CT on survival in lung cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 4085-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.9.4085
  9. Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, et al (2005). Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [$^{18}F$]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol, 23, 8362-70. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.1189
  10. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM (2011). Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 61, 69-90. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20107
  11. Lee DH, Kim SK, Lee HY, et al (2009). Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated $^{18}F$-FDG-PET/CT for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Oncol, 4, 816-21. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a99fde
  12. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al (2003). Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol, 21, 1285-92. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.07.054
  13. Martin J, Ginsberg RJ, Venkatraman ES, et al (2002). Long-term results of combined-modality therapy in resectable nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol, 20, 1989-95. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.08.092
  14. Miranda E, Bianchi P, Destro A, et al (2013). Genetic and epigenetic alterations in primary colorectal cancers and related lymph node and liver metastases. Cancer, 119, 266-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27722
  15. Nahmias C, Hanna WT, Wahl LM, et al (2007). Time course of early response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with $^{18}F$-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med, 48, 744-51. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.038513
  16. Novello S, Vavala T, Levra MG, et al (2013). Early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer assessed by [$^{18}F$]-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Lung Cancer, 14, 230-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2012.10.004
  17. Sekine I, Tamura T, Kunitoh H, et al (1999). Progressive disease rate as a surrogate endpoint of phase II trials fornon-smallcell lung cancer. Ann Oncol, 10, 731-3. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008303921033
  18. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, et al (2008). Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics, 28, 329-44. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.282075068
  19. Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, et al. (2004). Positronemission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol, 5, 531-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01564-5
  20. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009). From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med, 50, 122-50. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307
  21. Weber WA, Figlin R (2007). Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med, 48, 36-44.
  22. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al (2003). Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol, 21, 2651-7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.12.004

Cited by

  1. Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations vol.17, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/15384047.2016.1195049
  2. Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer vol.43, pp.11, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3420-7
  3. Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments vol.44, pp.S1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3