Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 836–844 | Cite as

Early response evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy with PET/MRI to predict resectability in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction

  • Mohamed BelmouhandEmail author
  • Johan Löfgren
  • Helle Hjorth Johannesen
  • Lene Baeksgaard
  • Henrik Gutte
  • Kiran Tariq
  • Michael Patrick Achiam
Hollow Organ GI
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Study design and purpose

Positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a new modality that has showed promising results for various clinical indications. Currently, evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) among patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction has primarily been reserved for PET/computed tomography. Our aim was to evaluate if early response evaluation by PET/MRI is a feasible method to predict resectability.

Methods and materials

Patients with untreated adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (Siewert types I/II) and fit for NT with no contraindications for PET/MRI were considered eligible. A baseline scan was performed prior to NT induction and an evaluation scan 3 weeks later. For histopathological response evaluation, the Mandard tumor regression grade score was applied. Response on PET/MRI was evaluated with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), and change in ADC and SUVmax values.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were enrolled, and 22 completed both scans and proceeded to final analyses. Seventeen patients were found resectable versus five who were found unresectable. PET/MRI response evaluation had a sensitivity 94%, specificity 80%, and AUC = 0.95 when predicting resectability in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. No association with histopathological response (tumor regression grade) was found nor was RECIST correlated with resectability.

Conclusion

Response evaluation using PET/MRI was a feasible method to predict resectability in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction in this pilot study. However, larger studies are warranted to justify the use of the modality for this indication.

Keywords

Positron emission tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Gastroesophageal junction cancer Chemotherapy Resectability Response evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the grant support from The Danish Cancer Society. We would also like to recognize the statistical support from The Data Science Laboratory, Department of Mathematical Science and the Department for Computer Science, University of Copenhagen.

Funding

This study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society (Kræftens Bekæmpelse), No. R136-A8486-15-S7.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. (2012) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2074–2084.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1112088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. (2006) Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 355:11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa055531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larsen AC, Hollander C, Duval L, et al. (2015) A nationwide retrospective study of perioperative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: tolerability, outcome, and prognostic factors. Ann Surg Oncol 22:1540–1547.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4127-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gillies RS, Middleton MR, Maynard ND, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV (2011) Additional benefit of (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the staging of oesophageal cancer. Eur Radiol 21:274–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1943-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delbeke D, Schoder H, Martin WH, Wahl RL (2009) Hybrid imaging (SPECT/CT and PET/CT): improving therapeutic decisions. Semin Nucl Med 39:308–340.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2009.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F, et al. (2006) Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 24:4692–4698.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.06.7801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giganti F, De Cobelli F, Canevari C, et al. (2014) Response to chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinoma with diffusion-weighted MRI and (18) F-FDG-PET/CT: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient and partial volume corrected standardized uptake value with histological tumor regression grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:1147–1157.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weber MA, Bender K, von Gall CC, et al. (2013) Assessment of diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose PET/CT in monitoring early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 22:45–52Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kjaer A, Loft A, Law I, et al. (2013) PET/MRI in cancer patients: first experiences and vision from Copenhagen. Magma 26:37–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-012-0357-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. (2012) First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med 53:845–855.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.098608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ, et al. (2007) PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 8:797–805.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(07)70244-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    zum Buschenfelde CM, Herrmann K, Schuster T, et al. (2011) (18)F-FDG PET-guided salvage neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: the MUNICON II trial. J Nucl Med 52:1189–1196.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.085803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rudiger Siewert J, Feith M, Werner M, Stein HJ (2000) Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1002 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 232:353–361.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200009000-00007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rusch VW (2010) 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1721–1724.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1024-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 45:228–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. (1994) Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer 73:2680–2686.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19940601)73:11<2680::AID-CNCR2820731105>3.0.CO;2-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee DH, Lee JM (2017) Whole-body PET/MRI for colorectal cancer staging: is it the way forward? J Magn Reson Imaging 45:21–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee G, Kim SJ, et al. (2014) Clinical implication of PET/MR imaging in preoperative esophageal cancer staging: comparison with PET/CT, endoscopic ultrasonography, and CT. J Nucl Med 55:1242–1247.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.138974 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM, et al. (2015) Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:49–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2873-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cho N, Im SA, Cheon GJ, et al. (2018) Integrated (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in breast cancer: early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:328–339.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3849-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malik V, Harmon M, Johnston C, et al. (2015) Whole Body MRI in the Staging of Esophageal Cancer–A Prospective Comparison with Whole Body 18F-FDG PET-CT. Dig Surg 32:397–408.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000431292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee DH, Kim SH, Joo I, Hur BY, Han JK (2016) Comparison between 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MDCT for the assessment of preoperative staging and resectability of gastric cancer. Eur J Radiol 85:1085–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim SJ, Koo PJ, Chang S (2016) Predictive value of repeated F-18 FDG PET/CT parameters changes during preoperative chemoradiotherapy to predict pathologic response and overall survival in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77:723–731.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-016-2988-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Heijl M, Omloo JM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. (2011) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for evaluating early response during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 253:56–63.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f66596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roedl JB, Colen RR, Holalkere NS, et al. (2008) Adenocarcinomas of the esophagus: response to chemoradiotherapy is associated with decrease of metabolic tumor volume as measured on PET-CT. Comparison to histopathologic and clinical response evaluation. Radiother Oncol 89:278–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elimova E, Wang X, Etchebehere E, et al. (2015) 18-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission computed tomography as predictive of response after chemoradiation in oesophageal cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 51:2545–2552.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malik V, Lucey JA, Duffy GJ, et al. (2010) Early repeated 18F-FDG PET scans during neoadjuvant chemoradiation fail to predict histopathologic response or survival benefit in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. J Nucl Med 51:1863–1869.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.079566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piessen G, Petyt G, Duhamel A, et al. (2013) Ineffectiveness of (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of tumor response after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 258:66–76.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828676c4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Cobelli F, Giganti F, Orsenigo E, et al. (2013) Apparent diffusion coefficient modifications in assessing gastro-oesophageal cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment: comparison with tumour regression grade at histology. Eur Radiol 23:2165–2174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2807-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kurokawa Y, Shibata T, Ando N, et al. (2013) Which is the optimal response criteria for evaluating preoperative treatment in esophageal cancer: RECIST or histology? Ann Surg Oncol 20:3009–3014.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2807-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, RigshospitaletUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, RigshospitaletUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Oncology, RigshospitaletUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Pathology, RigshospitaletUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations