Advantages of 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT over CT in the preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer
- 68 Downloads
Our study was designed to compare the diagnostic efficacies of integrated 99mTc-HYNIC-PEG4-E[PEG4-c(RGDfK)]2 (99mTc-3PRGD2) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images and computed tomography (CT) images in lymph node metastasis in the patients with esophageal cancer.
From September 2015 and May 2018, 32 patients with histologically proven primary esophageal carcinoma underwent both 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT and CT scans followed by esophagectomy with lymph node dissection. The results of reviewing 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT and CT images for the lymph node metastasis were compared in relation with pathologic findings.
During surgery, a total of 168 lymph nodes were dissected in 32 patients, of which 42 node groups in 18 patients were malignant on histologic examination. Preoperative nodal staging was compared with postoperative histopathological staging, The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT for lymph nodes were 80.95%, 86.51%, 85.12%, 66.67%, and 93.16% on per-node basis, respectively; compared with 59.52%, 73.02%, 69.64%, 42.37%, and 84.40% for CT (p = 0.034, 0.008, 0.005, 0.011, and 0.038, respectively). 70.59% (12/17) false-negative interpretations and 50% (17/34) false-positive interpretations on CT were corrected by 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT. 37.5% false-negative interpretations on 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT were corrected by CT. 11.90% (5/42) positive lymph nodes and 13.49% (17/126) negative nodes at pathology were incorrectly diagnosed both by 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT and CT. The accuracy of 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT (87.50%, 28/32) was significantly higher than that of CT (62.50, 20/32; p = 0.022) on per-patient basis. 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy in the neck and upper thoracic regions than CT. For nodal staging, 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT was correct in 78.12% (25/32) of the patients, whereas CT was correct in 53.12% (17/32), p = 0.037.
99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT is more accurate than CT for preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer and may be helpful in determining the therapeutic plan.
Keywords99mTc-3PRGD2 Esophageal cancer SPECT CT Lymph node
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) projects (Grant number: 81501506), the Foundation of National Health and Family Planning Commission of Jilin Province (Grant number: 2016Q038), the Norman Bethune Program of Jilin University (Grant number: 2015219).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, Triboulet JP. The number of metastatic lymph nodes and the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes are independent prognostic factors in esophageal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiation or lymphadenectomy extent. Ann Surg. 2008;247(2):365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Gang N, Chen X. Why integrin as a primary target for imaging and therapy. Theranostics. 2011;1(1):30–47.Google Scholar
- 13.GAO Shi MA, Qingjie WEN, Qiang JIA, Bing LIU, Zhaofei CHEN, Zuowei, et al. ~(99 m)Tc-3P_4—RGD_2 radiotracers for SPECT/CT of esophageal tumor. Nucl Sci Tech. 2013;24(4):38–43.Google Scholar
- 15.Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz M. TNM classification of malignant tumours. John Wiley & Sons: New York, USA; 2009.Google Scholar
- 16.Guanghui C, Shi G, Tiefeng J, Qingjie M, Bing j, Zhuowei C, et al. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of, (99 m) Tc-3PRGD_2 in healthy individuals: A pilot study. Nucl Sci Tech. 2012;23(6):349–54.Google Scholar
- 22.Liu L, Song Y, Gao S, Ji T, Zhang H, Ji B, et al. (99)mTc-3PRGD2 scintimammography in palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions. Mol Imaging. 2013;13(5):1–7.Google Scholar
- 25.Kato H, Kimura H, Nakajima M, Sakai M, Sano A, Tanaka N, et al. The additional value of integrated PET/CT over PET in initial lymph node staging of esophageal cancer. Oncol Rep. 2008;20(4):857–62.Google Scholar