Advertisement

The value of different 18F-FDG PET/CT baseline parameters in risk stratification of stage I surgical NSCLC patients

  • Hoda Anwar
  • Thomas J. Vogl
  • Mahasen A. Abougabal
  • Frank Grünwald
  • Peter Kleine
  • Sherif Elrefaie
  • Nour-Eldin A. Nour-Eldin
Original Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Administration of postoperative chemotherapy to patients with completely resected stage I NSCLC is still a matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the value of different baseline 18F-FDG PET parameters in identifying surgical stage I NSCLC patients who are at high risk of recurrence, and thus are indicated for further postoperative treatment.

Methods

This is a retrospective study, which included 49 patients (28 males, 21 females) with the median age of 69 years (range 28–84), who had pathologically proven stage I NSCLC. All patients underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline followed by complete surgical resection of the tumor (R0). Baseline SUVmax, MTV and TLG were measured. Patients’ follow-up records were retrospectively reviewed, and DFS (disease-free survival) was assessed. For each parameter, the most accurate cut-off value for the prediction of recurrence was calculated using the ROC curve analysis and the Youden index. DFS was evaluated for patients above and below the calculated cut-off value using the Kaplan–Meier method and the difference in survival between the two groups was estimated using the log-rank test.

Results

Median observation time of the patients after surgery was 28.7 months (range 3.5–58.8 months). 9 patients developed recurrence. The calculated cut-off values for SUVmax, MTV and TLG were 6, 6.6 and 33.6, respectively. Using these cut-offs, the observed sensitivity for SUVmax, MTV and TLG for prediction of recurrence was 100%, 89% and 89%, respectively, while the observed specificity was 43%, 73% and 65%, respectively. The difference in survival between patients below and above the cut-off value was statistically significant in all three studied parameters. The highest AUC was observed for MTV (AUC = 0.825, p = 0.003), followed by TLG (AUC = 0.789, p = 0.007), and lastly SUVmax (AUC = 0.719, p = 0.041). ROC curve analysis showed that volumetric parameters had better predictive performance than SUVmax as regards recurrence.

Conclusion

PET-derived parameters at baseline were predictive of recurrence in stage I surgical NSCLC patients. Moreover, the metabolic volume of the tumor was the most significant parameter for this purpose among the studied indices.

Keywords

18F-FDG PET/CT NSCLC Recurrence SUVmax MTV TLG 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ, Kim AW, Tanoue LT. The eighth edition lung cancer stage classification. Chest. 2017;151(1):193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Detterbeck F. Stage classification and prediction of prognosis: difference between accountants and speculators. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(7):820–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chansky K, Sculier J-P, Crowley JJ, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project: prognostic factors and pathologic TNM stage in surgically managed non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(7):792–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodgame B, Viswanathan A, Zoole J, et al. Risk of recurrence of resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients as compared with younger patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(11):1370–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu J, Dong M, Sun X, Li W, Xing L, Yu J. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in surgical non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Patnaik S, ed. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hyun SH, Choi JY, Kim K, et al. Volume-based parameters of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography improve outcome prediction in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):364–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim D-H, Son SH, Kim C-Y, et al. Prediction for recurrence using F-18 FDG PET/CT in pathologic N0 lung adenocarcinoma after curative surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(2):589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roselli M, Mariotti S, Ferroni P, et al. Postsurgical chemotherapy in stage IB nonsmall cell lung cancer: long-term survival in a randomized study. Int J Cancer. 2006;119(4):955–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peng S, Li X, Wang Y, Liu J. Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on DFS for patients with stage I NSCLC. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 2017;20(7):485–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ, Tanoue LT. The new lung cancer staging system. Chest. 2009;136(1):260–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strauss LG, Conti PS. The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 1991;32(4):623–48 (discussion 649–50).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The Visual Response Score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2(3):159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(1):39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vincet T. DeVita Jr, Theodore S, Lawrence SAR. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s cancer: principles & practice of oncology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2015.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A. PET-based molecular imaging in personalized oncology: potential of the assessment of therapeutic outcome. Fut Oncol. 2015;11(7):1083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC. 2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2017.
  17. 17.
    Scott WJ, Howington J, Feigenberg S, Movsas B, Pisters K. American College of Chest Physicians. Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd ed.). Chest. 2007;132(3 Suppl):234S–42S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coleman RE. PET in lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(5):814–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al-Sarraf N, Gately K, Lucey J, et al. Clinical implication and prognostic significance of standardised uptake value of primary non-small cell lung cancer on positron emission tomography: analysis of 176 cases. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;34(4):892–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nair VS, Krupitskaya Y, Gould MK. Positron emission tomography 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognosis in patients with surgically treated, stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(12):1473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Dusart M, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Part. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(5):612–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Na F, Wang J, Li C, Deng L, Xue J, Lu Y. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prediction value for survival and local control in non-small-cell lung cancer receiving radiotherapy: meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(6):834–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vesselle H, Freeman JD, Wiens L, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of primary non-small cell lung cancer at positron emission tomography: new contrary data on prognostic role. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(11):3255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Agarwal M, Brahmanday G, Bajaj SK, Ravikrishnan KP, Wong C-YO. Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(4):691–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin Y, Lin W-Y, Kao C-H, Yen K-Y, Chen S-W, Yeh J-J. Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volumes on PET-CT in predicting disease-free survival of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(11):5087–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Liao S, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden from (18)F-FDG PET in surgical patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(1):32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim K, Kim S-J, Kim I-J, Kim YS, Pak K, Kim H. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured by F-18 FDG PET/CT in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(6):613–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Melloni G, Gajate AMS, Sestini S, et al. New positron emission tomography derived parameters as predictive factors for recurrence in resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(11):1254–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park SY, Cho A, Yu WS, et al. Prognostic value of total lesion glycolysis by 18F-FDG PET/CT in surgically resected stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):45–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van de Wiele C, Kruse V, Smeets P, Sathekge M, Maes A. Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(2):290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kao C-H, Lin S-C, Hsieh T-C, et al. Use of pretreatment metabolic tumour volumes to predict the outcome of pharyngeal cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(8):1297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fencl P, Belohlavek O, Harustiak T, Zemanova M. The analysis of factors affecting the threshold on repeated 18F-FDG-PET/CT investigations measured by the PERCIST protocol in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(11):1188–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ilyas H, Mikhaeel NG, Dunn JT, et al. Defining the optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumour volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(7):1142–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kitao T, Hirata K, Shima K, et al. Reproducibility and uptake time dependency of volume-based parameters on FDG-PET for lung cancer. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Kasr Al-Ainy Center of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear MedicineFaculty of Medicine-Cairo UniversityCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyJohann Wolfgang von Goethe University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineJohann Wolfgang von Goethe University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany
  4. 4.Department of Cardiothoracic SurgeryJohann Wolfgang von Goethe University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany
  5. 5.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyCairo University HospitalCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations