Advertisement

Prognostic utility of FDG PET/CT in advanced ovarian, fallopian and primary peritoneal high-grade serous cancer patients before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

  • Masao Watanabe
  • Yuji NakamotoEmail author
  • Takayoshi Ishimori
  • Tsuneo Saga
  • Aki Kido
  • Junzo Hamanishi
  • Yasuyo Hamanaka
  • Kaori Togashi
Original Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

In patients with advanced ovarian, fallopian and primary peritoneal carcinoma, complete interval debulking surgery (IDS) is often performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to achieve long progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We aimed to investigate the utility of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) PET/CT in patients with these malignancies who underwent complete IDS.

Methods

Between 2009 and 2017, twenty-two patients underwent FDG PET/CT scans before and after NAC. The highest SUVmax/peak (standardized uptake value), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) for whole lesions were defined as target SUVmax/peak, tMTV and tTLG, respectively. We also calculated these reduction rates during NAC. These parameters were compared between the groups with platinum-free interval (PFI) > 12 months (n = 10) and those with PFI ≤ 12 months (n = 12). The PFS and OS were evaluated using these quantitative parameters, and in terms of the presence of visually detectable residual lesions after NAC.

Results

The target SUVmax/peak before NAC, the reduction rates in the target SUVmax, tMTV and tTLG were significantly higher in the group with PFI > 12 months than the shorter PFI group (p < 0.05). Especially in PFS, the higher reduction rates in the target SUVmax/peak, tMTV, and tTLG had an excellent prognostic stratification (p < 0.05) and the FDG visually negative group after NAC had a significantly better prognosis than the other group (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The reduction rate of FDG PET-based quantitative values and visual analysis after NAC demonstrated prognostic potential, especially in PFS.

Keywords

18F-FDG PET–CT Ovary Fallopian tube Peritoneum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We have nothing to declare concerning this Acknowledgements. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Funding

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:943–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Lang J, Huh J, Haddad L, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. What is the optimal goal of primary cytoreductive surgery for bulky stage IIIc epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC)? Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:559–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. Impact of complete cytoreduction leaving no gross residual disease associated with radical cytoreductive surgical procedures on survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:4059–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luyckx M, Leblanc E, Filleron T, Morice P, Darai E, Classe JM, et al. Maximal cytoreduction in patients with FIGO stage IIIC to stage IV ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer in day-to-day practice: a retrospective french multicentric study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang SJ, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:493–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vergote I, Coens C, Nankivell M, Kristensen GB, Parmar MKB, Ehlen T, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancers: pooled analysis of individual patient data from the EORTC 55971 and CHORUS trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1680–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung HH, Kwon HW, Kang KW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1966–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JW, Cho A, Lee JH, Yun M, Lee JD, Kim YT, et al. The role of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis on 18F-FDG PET/CT in the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1898–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vallius T, Peter A, Auranen A, Carpén O, Kemppainen J, Matomäki J, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT can identify histopathological non-responders to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamamoto M, Tsujikawa T, Fujita Y, Chino Y, Kurokawa T, Kiyono Y, et al. Metabolic tumor burden predicts prognosis of ovarian cancer patients who receive platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Sci. 2016;107:478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, Naehrig J, Rutke S, Weber WA, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7445–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee M, Lee H, Cheon GJ, Kim HS, Chung HH, Kim JW, et al. Prognosis value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han S, Kim H, Kim YJ, Suh CH, Woo S. Prognostic values of volume-based metabolic parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT in ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 2018;32:669–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groheux D, Mankoff D, Espié M, Hindié E. 18F-FDG PET/CT in the early prediction of pathological response in aggressive subtypes of breast cancer: review of the literature and recommendations for use in clinical trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:983–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groheux D, Biard L, Lehmann-Che J, Teixeira L, Bouhidel FA, Poirot B, et al. Tumor metabolism assessed by FDG-PET/CT and tumor proliferation assessed by genomic grade index to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Groheux D, Biard L, Giacchetti S, Teixeira L, Hindié E, Cuvier C, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for the early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment in triple-negative breast cancer: influence of the chemotherapy regimen. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:536–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee HW, Lee HM, Choi SE, Yoo H, Ahn SG, Lee MK, et al. The prognostic impact of early change in 18F-FDG PET SUV after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1183–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim MK, Ryu JS, Kim SB, Ahn JH, Kim SY, Park SI, et al. Value of complete metabolic response by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in oesophageal cancer for prediction of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tamandl D, Gore RM, Fueger B, Kinsperger P, Hejna M, Paireder M, et al. Change in volume parameters induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy provide accurate prediction of overall survival after resection in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:311–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vallius T, Hynninen J, Kemppainen J, Alves V, Auranen K, Matomäki J, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT based total metabolic tumor volume change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1224–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sebastian TB, Manjeshwar RM, Akhurst TJ, Miller JV. Objective PET lesion segmentation using a spherical mean shift algorithm. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2006;9:782–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oronsky B, Ray CM, Spira AI, Trepel JB, Carter CA, Cottrill HM. A brief review of the management of platinum-resistant-platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. Med Oncol. 2017;34:103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colombo N, Gore M. Treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer relapsing 6–12 months post platinum-based chemotherapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007;64:129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pignata S, Cecere CS, Du Bois A, Harter P, Heitz F (2017) Treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 28(Suppl 8): viii 51- viii 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kothari R, Nagel C, Koopmeiners JS, Ivy JJ, Geller M, Salani R, et al. The effect of age on tolerability of intraperitoneal chemotherapy, complication rate, and survival in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:491–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Takeda Oncologic Positron Imaging CenterKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations