The prognostic value of 18F–FDG PET/CT prior to liver transplantation for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases

  • Harald Grut
  • Svein Dueland
  • Pål Dag Line
  • Mona Elisabeth Revheim
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of volumetric and metabolic information derivied from F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F–FDG PET) in combination with computed tomography (CT) prior to liver transplantation (LT) in patients with nonresectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Due to scarcity of liver grafts, prognostic information enabling selection of candidates who will gain the highest survival after LT is of vital importance. 18F–FDG PET/CT was a part of the preoperative study protocol. Patients without evidence of extrahepatic malignant disease on 18F–FDG PET/CT who also fulfilled all the other inclusion criteria underwent LT.

Methods

The preoperative 18F–FDG PET/CT examinations of all patients included in the SECA (secondary cancer) study were retrospectively assessed. Maximum, mean and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak), tumor to background (T/B) ratio, metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured and calculated for all liver metastases. Total MTV and TLG were calculated for each patient. Cut-off values were determined for each of these parameters by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis dividing the patients into two groups. One, three and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) for patients over and under the cut-off value were compared by using the Kaplan–Meier method and log rank test.

Results

Twenty-three patients underwent LT in the SECA study. Total MTV and TLG under the cut-off values were significantly correlated to improved OS at three and five years (p = 0.027 and 0.026) and DFS (p = 0.01). One, three and five-year OS and DFS were not significantly related to SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak or T/B-ratio.

Conclusion

Total MTV and TLG from 18F FDG PET/CT prior to LT for nonresectable CLM were significantly correlated to improved three and five-year OS and DFS and can potentially improve the patient selection for LT.

Keywords

18F-FDG PET/CT Colorectal cancer Liver transplantation Liver metastases 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The SECA study was an open prospective study with institutional and regional ethical board approval (S-05409 Regional Ethics Committee. SECA study, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01311453).

References

  1. 1.
    Kanas GP, Taylor A, Primrose JN, Langeberg WJ, Kelsh MA, Mowat FS, et al. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin Epidemiol. 2012;4:283–301.  https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S34285.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:693–9.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603143341104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, Bhoori S, Schiavo M, Mariani L, et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:35–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70284-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masuoka HC, Rosen CB. Transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Liver Dis. 2011;15:699–715.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cld.2011.08.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee KK, Kim DG, Moon IS, Lee MD, Park JH. Liver transplantation versus liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:47–53.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21415.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le Treut YP, Gregoire E, Klempnauer J, Belghiti J, Jouve E, Lerut J, et al. Liver transplantation for neuroendocrine tumors in Europe-results and trends in patient selection: a 213-case European liver transplant registry study. Ann Surg. 2013;257:807–15.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828ee17c.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoti E, Adam R. Liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancers. Transpl Int. 2008;21:1107–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00735.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hagness M, Foss A, Line PD, Scholz T, Jorgensen PF, Fosby B, et al. Liver transplantation for nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257:800–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182823957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Briggs RH, Chowdhury FU, Lodge JP, Scarsbrook AF. Clinical impact of FDG PET-CT in patients with potentially operable metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:1167–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.07.046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin M, Wong K, Ng WL, Shon IH, Morgan M. Positron emission tomography and colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;77:30–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Network NCC. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines Version 32017 Colon and Rectal Cancer 2017.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bipat S, van Leeuwen MS, Comans EF, Pijl ME, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis--meta-analysis. Radiology. 2005;237:123–31.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371042060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maffione AM, Lopci E, Bluemel C, Giammarile F, Herrmann K, Rubello D. Diagnostic accuracy and impact on management of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:152–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2930-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel S, McCall M, Ohinmaa A, Bigam D, Dryden DM. Positron emission tomography/computed tomographic scans compared to computed tomographic scans for detecting colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2011;253:666–71.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821110c9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ozis SE, Soydal C, Akyol C, Can N, Kucuk ON, Yagci C, et al. The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the primary staging of rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:26.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tam HH, Cook GJ, Chau I, Drake B, Zerizer I, Du Y, et al. The role of routine clinical pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting outcome of colorectal liver metastasis. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e259–64.  https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xia Q, Liu J, Wu C, Song S, Tong L, Huang G, et al. Prognostic significance of (18)FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases: a meta-analysis. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15:19.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-015-0055-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bai B, Bading J, Conti PS. Tumor quantification in clinical positron emission tomography. Theranostics. 2013;3:787–801.  https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.5629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hyun SH, Choi JY, Shim YM, Kim K, Lee SJ, Cho YS, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:115–22.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0719-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pan L, Gu P, Huang G, Xue H, Wu S. Prognostic significance of SUV on PET/CT in patients with esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21:1008–15.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e328323d6fa.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Sarraf N, Gately K, Lucey J, Aziz R, Doddakula K, Wilson L, 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;34:892–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.07.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Vincent A, Bains MS, Larson S, et al. Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3255–60.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.11.109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Appelbaum D, Pu Y. Independent prognostic value of whole-body metabolic tumor burden from FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013;8:181–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0749-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dibble EH, Alvarez AC, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, Subramaniam RM. 18F-FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:709–15.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.099531.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Higgins KA, Hoang JK, Roach MC, Chino J, Yoo DS, Turkington TG, et al. Analysis of pretreatment FDG-PET SUV parameters in head-and-neck cancer: tumor SUVmean has superior prognostic value. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:548–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shady W, Kishore S, Gavane S, Do RK, Osborne JR, Ulaner GA, et al. Metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis on FDG-PET/CT can predict overall survival after (90)Y radioembolization of colorectal liver metastases: A comparison with SUVmax, SUVpeak, and RECIST 1.0. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1224–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ogawa S, Itabashi M, Kondo C, Momose M, Sakai S, Kameoka S. Prognostic Value of Total Lesion Glycolysis Measured by 18F-FDG-PET/CT in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:3495–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim YI, Paeng JC, Cheon GJ, Suh KS, Lee DS, Chung JK, et al. Prediction of Posttransplantation Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Metabolic and Volumetric Indices of 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1045–51.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.170076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gulec SA, Suthar RR, Barot TC, Pennington K. The prognostic value of functional tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing 90Y selective internal radiation therapy plus chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1289–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1758-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bailly M, Venel Y, Orain I, Salame E, Ribeiro MJ. 18F-FDG PET in Liver Transplantation Setting of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Predicting Histology? Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e126–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000001040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Detry O, Govaerts L, Deroover A, Vandermeulen M, Meurisse N, Malenga S, et al. Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in liver transplantation for hepatocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:3049–54.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3049.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim YK, Kim C, Kim SK, Han SS, et al. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT predicts early tumor recurrence in living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transpl Int. 2013;26:50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01572.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin CY, Liao CW, Chu LY, Yen KY, Jeng LB, Hsu CN, et al. Predictive Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Vascular Invasion in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Before Liver Transplantation. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e183–e7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fendler WP, Philippe Tiega DB, Ilhan H, Paprottka PM, Heinemann V, Jakobs TF, et al. Validation of several SUV-based parameters derived from 18F-FDG PET for prediction of survival after SIRT of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1202–8.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.116426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soydal C, Kucuk ON, Gecim EI, Bilgic S, Elhan AH. The prognostic value of quantitative parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of response to internal radiation therapy with yttrium-90 in patients with liver metastases of colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2013;34:501-506. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32835f9427.
  38. 38.
    Zerizer I, Al-Nahhas A, Towey D, Tait P, Ariff B, Wasan H, et al. The role of early (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of progression-free survival after (9)(0)Y radioembolization: comparison with RECIST and tumour density criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1391–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2149-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sabet A, Meyer C, Aouf A, Sabet A, Ghamari S, Pieper CC, et al. Early post-treatment FDG PET predicts survival after 90Y microsphere radioembolization in liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:370–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2935-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hagness M, Foss A, Egge TS, Dueland S. Patterns of recurrence after liver transplantation for nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1323–9.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3449-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24:523–43.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.242025724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pettinato C, Nanni C, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Sarnelli A, Civollani S, et al. Artefacts of PET/CT images. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. 2006;2:e60.  https://doi.org/10.2349/biij.2.4.e60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chi A, Nguyen NP. 4D PET/CT as a Strategy to Reduce Respiratory Motion Artifacts in FDG-PET/CT. Front Oncol. 2014;4:205.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00205.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Division of OncologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Department of Transplantation MedicineOslo University HospitalOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations