Advertisement

FDG PET-derived parameters as prognostic tool in progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma treated patients

  • E. Incerti
  • S. Broggi
  • A. Fodor
  • M. Cuzzocrea
  • A. M. Samanes Gajate
  • P. Mapelli
  • C. Fiorino
  • I. Dell’Oca
  • M. Pasetti
  • M. Cattaneo
  • R. Calandrino
  • L. Gianolli
  • N. Di Muzio
  • Maria Picchio
Original Article
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The value of FDG PET-derived parameters in predicting overall survival (OS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in treated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) was evaluated.

Methods

This retrospective evaluation included 55 MPM patients treated between March 2006 and February 2015 with FDG PET/CT-guided salvage helical tomotherapy (HTT) after previous surgery plus chemotherapy. Univariate Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of the following FDG PET-derived parameters: biological target volume (BTV), mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmean/max), metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), measured using different uptake thresholds (40%, 50% and 60%). Logistic regression was then performed to identify the best FDG PET-derived parameters for selecting patients with poorer survival.

Results

The median OS was 9.1 months (range 0.0 – 69.6 months) after the end of HTT; 54/55 patients were dead at the last follow-up. BTV and TLG40, TLG50 and TLG60 were the most significant predictors of OS (p < 0.005). The median OS was 4.8 months in patients with MTV60 >5 cm3 and TLG40 >334.4, compared with 13.8 months and 16.1 months in patients with smaller values, respectively. The median LRFS and DRFS were 6.2 months (range 1.2 – 39.4 months) and 6.5 months (0.0 – 66.4 months), respectively. TLG40, TLG50 and TLG60 were significantly correlated with LRFS (p < 0.015). Median DRFS was 6.4 months in patients with MTV40 >39.6 cm3 and 6.2 months in patients with TLG40 >334.4, compared with 17 months and 18.8 months in patients with smaller values. BTV, TLG40 and MTV40 were also found to be good predictors in patients with poor OS/LRFS/DRFS (median survival times less than the median values).

Conclusion

FDG PET-derived parameters effectively discriminated patients with a poor prognosis and may be helpful in the selection of MPM patients for salvage HTT.

Keywords

Malignant pleural mesothelioma FDG PET/CT Helical tomotherapy Survival MTV TLG 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Research Committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Delgermaa V, Takahashi K, Park EK, Le GV, Hara T, Sorahan T. Global mesothelioma deaths reported to the World Health Organization between 1994 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:716–24.  https://doi.org/10.2471/Blt.11.086678.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peto J, Decarli A, La Vecchia C, Levis F, Negri E. The European mesothelioma epidemic. Br J Cancer. 1999;79:666–72.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, Denham C, Kaukel E, Ruffie P, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2636–44.  https://doi.org/10.1200/Jco.2003.11.136.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Meerbeeck JP, Gaafar R, Manegold C, Van Klaveren RJ, Van Marck EA, Vincent M, et al. Randomized phase III study of cisplatin with or without raltitrexed in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: an intergroup study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group and the National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6881–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/Jco.20005.14.589.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baas P, Fennell D, Kerr KM, Van Schil PE, Haas RL, Peters S, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(Suppl 5):v31–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv199.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bovolato P, Casadio C, Bille A, Ardissone F, Santambrogio L, Ratto GB, et al. Does surgery improve survival of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma? J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:390–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/Jto.0000000000000064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cao C, Tian D, Park J, Allan J, Pataky KA, Yan TD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2014;83:240–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.11.026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenzweig KE, Gupta V, Mychalczak B, Krug LM, Flores R, Rusch VW. Hemithoracic radiation therapy and brachytherapy after pleurectomy/decortication for malignant pleural mesothelioma: results from a 30-year experience. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16_suppl):7180.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.23.16_suppl.7180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haas AR, Sterman DH. Malignant pleural mesothelioma update on treatment options with a focus on novel therapies. Clin Chest Med. 2013;34:99–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2012.12.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reynders K, Illidge T, Siva S, Chang JY, De Ruysscher D. The abscopal effect of local radiotherapy: using immunotherapy to make a rare event clinically relevant. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:503–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.03.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcq E, Pauwels P, van Meerbeeck JP, Smits ELJ. Targeting immune checkpoints: new opportunity for mesothelioma treatment? Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:914–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.09.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamamuro M, Gerbaudo VH, Gill RR, Jacobson FL, Sugarbaker DJ, Hatabu H. Morphologic and functional imaging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Radiol. 2007;64:356–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.08.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanemura S, Kuribayashi K, Funaguchi N, Shibata E, Mikami K, Doi H, et al. Metabolic response assessment with 18F-FDG-PET/CT is superior to modified RECIST for the evaluation of response to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:92–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.11.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flores RM. The role of PET in the surgical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2005;49:S27–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2005.03.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lammering G, De Ruysscher D, van Baardwijk A, Baumert BG, Borger J, Lutgens L, et al. The use of FDG-PET to target tumors by radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol. 2010;186:471–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-010-2150-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benard F, Sterman D, Smith RJ, Kaiser LR, Albelda SM, Alavi A. Metabolic imaging of malignant pleural mesothelioma with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Chest. 1998;114:713–22.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.114.3.713.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerbaudo VH, Sugarbaker DJ, Britz-Cunningham S, Di Carli MF, Mauceri C, Treves ST. Assessment of malignant pleural mesothelioma with F-18-FDG dual-head gamma-camera coincidence imaging: comparison with histopathology. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1144–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ng DCE, Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Dussek J. Prognostic value of FDG PET imaging in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1443–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schneider DB, Clary-Macy C, Challa S, Sasse KC, Merrick SH, Hawkins R, et al. Positron emission tomography with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and preoperative evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:128–33.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2000.106529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gregianin M, Dei Rossi F, Cracco E, Zaccaria A, Canton A, Pagan V. PET/CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:S142.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Francis RJ, Byrne MJ, van der Schaaf AA, Boucek JA, Nowak AK, Phillips M, et al. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy and survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma using a novel semiautomated 3-dimensional volume-based analysis of serial F-18-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1449–58.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.042333.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fodor A, Fiorino C, Dell’Oca I, Broggi S, Pasetti M, Cattaneo GM, et al. PET-guided dose escalation tomotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011;187:736–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-011-2234-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:1341–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00060-C.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta V, Mychalczak B, Krug L, Flores R, Bains M, Rusch VW, et al. Hemithoracic radiation therapy after pleurectomy/decortication for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:1045–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.041.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maggio A, Cutaia C, Di Dia A, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Poli M, et al. Tomotherapy PET-guided dose escalation. Strahlenther Onkol. 2016;192:102–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-015-0901-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    West SD, Lee YC. Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clin Chest Med. 2006;27:335–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2006.01.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McAleer MF, Tsao AS, Liao ZX. Radiotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:326–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.037.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abdel-Rahman O. Role of postoperative radiotherapy in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Strahlenther Onkol. 2017;193:276–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-016-1092-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ung YC, Yu E, Falkson C, Haynes AE, Stys-Norman D, Evans WK. The role of radiation therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2006;80:13–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.06.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Munter MW, Nill S, Thilmann C, Hof H, Hoss A, Haring P, et al. Stereotactic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and inverse treatment planning for advanced pleural mesothelioma – feasibility and initial results. Strahlenther Onkol. 2003;179:535–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-003-1055-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rice DC, Smythe WR, Liao ZX, Guerrero T, Chang JY, McAleer MF, et al. Dose-dependent pulmonary toxicity after postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:350–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.03.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fuccio C, Spinapolice EG, Ferretti A, Castellucci P, Marzola MC, Trifiro G, et al. F-18-FDG-PET/CT in malignant mesothelioma. Biomed Pharmacother. 2013;67:539–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2013.01.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nowak AK, Francis RJ, Phillips MJ, Millward MJ, van der Schaaf AA, Boucek J, et al. A novel prognostic model for malignant mesothelioma incorporating quantitative FDG-PET imaging with clinical parameters. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2409–17.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schaefer NG, Veit-Haibach P, Soyka JD, Steinert HC, Stahel RA. Continued pemetrexed and platin-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:E19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Veit-Haibach P, Schaefer NG, Steinert HC, Soyka JD, Seifert B, Stahel RA. Combined FDG-PET/CT in response evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2010;67:311–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.04.015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee HY, Hyun SH, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim J, Shim YM, et al. Volume-based parameter of F-18-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2787–94.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1107-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee ST, Ghanem M, Herbertson RA, Berlangieri SU, Byrne AJ, Tabone K, et al. Prognostic value of F-18-FDG PET/CT in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:473–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0203-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Incerti
    • 1
  • S. Broggi
    • 2
  • A. Fodor
    • 3
  • M. Cuzzocrea
    • 4
  • A. M. Samanes Gajate
    • 1
  • P. Mapelli
    • 1
    • 5
  • C. Fiorino
    • 2
  • I. Dell’Oca
    • 3
  • M. Pasetti
    • 3
  • M. Cattaneo
    • 2
  • R. Calandrino
    • 2
  • L. Gianolli
    • 1
  • N. Di Muzio
    • 3
  • Maria Picchio
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Unit of Nuclear MedicineIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  2. 2.Unit of Medical PhysicsIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  3. 3.Unit of RadiotherapyIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  4. 4.University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  5. 5.Vita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations