Advertisement

Significance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Uptake in Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer

  • Hiroshi Kurahara
  • Kosei Maemura
  • Yuko Mataki
  • Masahiko Sakoda
  • Satoshi Iino
  • Yota Kawasaki
  • Takaaki Arigami
  • Shinichiro Mori
  • Yuko Kijima
  • Shinichi Ueno
  • Hiroyuki Shinchi
  • Shoji Natsugoe
Pancreatic Tumors
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Background

A metabolic shift to glycolysis is reportedly involved in radioresistance. We examined whether pretreatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), which can detect enhanced glucose uptake, was able to predict the therapeutic response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC).

Methods

Of 125 PC patients (75 unresectable and 50 borderline resectable), 37 and 26 underwent induction chemotherapy before CRT and surgical resection after CRT, respectively. FDG-PET was performed at three different institutions.

Results

Of the 88 patients who underwent upfront CRT, 31 (35%), 34 (39%), and 23 (26%) showed a partial response (PR), stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively. The tumor PR rate was an independent factor associated with longer overall survival (OS) on multivariate analysis. We evaluated the optimal cut-off of maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) at initial diagnosis to detect the tumor PR rate at the three institutions separately. The SUVmax was independently associated with tumor response rate on multivariate analysis. In the low SUVmax group, induction chemotherapy had no significant impact on OS. In contrast, induction chemotherapy was significantly associated with longer OS in the high SUVmax group.

Conclusions

FDG-PET SUVmax was significantly associated with the therapeutic response to CRT in PC patients. Moreover, induction chemotherapy may improve the prognosis of patients with a high SUVmax tumor.

Notes

Disclosure

Hiroshi Kurahara, Kosei Maemura, Yuko Mataki, Masahiko Sakoda, Satoshi Iino, Yota Kawasaki, Takaaki Arigami, Shinichiro Mori, Yuko Kijima, Shinichi Ueno, Hiroyuki Shinchi, and Shoji Natsugoe declare that they have no commercial interests.

Supplementary material

10434_2018_7098_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)
10434_2018_7098_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (636 kb)

Supplementary Figure 1. This study included 50 borderline resectable (BR) and 75 unresectable (UR) pancreatic cancer patients. Of the 125 patients, 37 underwent induction chemotherapy. During chemotherapy, two patients had distant metastasis, and the remaining 35 patients underwent subsequent CRT

Supplementary material 2 (JPEG 636 kb)
10434_2018_7098_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (551 kb)

Supplementary Figure 2. Distribution of the SUVmax of all patients who underwent upfront CRT by institution

Supplementary material 3 (JPEG 550 kb)
10434_2018_7098_MOESM4_ESM.jpg (753 kb)

Supplementary Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the PFS rates from the initial treatment. (A) Induction chemotherapy had no significant prognostic impact in the low SUVmax group (P = 0.204). (B) Induction chemotherapy was significantly associated with longer PFS in the high SUVmax group (P = 0.006). FDG-PET, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography; SUV, standardized uptake value

Supplementary material 4 (JPEG 752 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartwig W, Gluth A, Hinz U, et al. Outcomes after extended pancreatectomy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2016;103(12):1683–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Small W Jr, Berlin J, Freedman GM, et al. Full-dose gemcitabine with concurrent radiation therapy in patients with nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer: a multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(6):942–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shinchi H, Maemura K, Mataki Y, et al. A phase II study of oral S-1 with concurrent radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy with S-1 alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012;19(2):152–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takahashi H, Akita H, Tomokuni A, et al. Preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: impact of venous and arterial involvement status on surgical outcome and pattern of recurrence. Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):1091–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz MH, Pisters PW, Lee JE, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: what have we learned and where do we go from here? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(3):608–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takahashi H, Ohigashi H, Ishikawa O, et al. Perineural invasion and lymph node involvement as indicators of surgical outcome and pattern of recurrence in the setting of preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;255(1):95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    White RR, Xie HB, Gottfried MR, et al. Significance of histological response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(3):214–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halbrook CJ, Lyssiotis CA. Employing metabolism to improve the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Cell. 2017;31(1):5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levine AJ, Puzio-Kuter AM. The control of the metabolic switch in cancers by oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Science. 2010;330(6009):1340–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123(3191):309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meijer TW, Kaanders JH, Span PN, et al. Targeting hypoxia, HIF-1, and tumor glucose metabolism to improve radiotherapy efficacy. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(20):5585–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo XM, Xu B, Zhou ML, et al. Co-inhibition of GLUT-1 expression and the PI3 K/Akt signaling pathway to enhance the radiosensitivity of laryngeal carcinoma xenografts in vivo. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0143306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macheda ML, Rogers S, Best JD. Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2005;202(3):654–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melstrom LG, Salabat MR, Ding XZ, et al. Apigenin down-regulates the hypoxia response genes: HIF-1alpha, GLUT-1, and VEGF in human pancreatic cancer cells. J Surg Res. 2011;167(2):173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis-Yadley AH, Abbott AM, Pimiento JM, et al. Increased expression of the glucose transporter type 1 gene is associated with worse overall survival in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2016;45(7):974–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharen G, Peng Y, Cheng H, et al. Prognostic value of GLUT-1 expression in pancreatic cancer: results from 538 patients. Oncotarget. 2017;8(12):19760–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wood KA, Hoskin PJ, Saunders MI. Positron emission tomography in oncology: a review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007;19(4):237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramanathan RK, Goldstein D, Korn RL, et al. Positron emission tomography response evaluation from a randomized phase III trial of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):648–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaida H, Azuma K, Kawahara A, et al. The correlation between FDG uptake and biological molecular markers in pancreatic cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1804–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kauhanen SP, Komar G, Seppanen MP, et al. A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, multidetector row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;250(6):957–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maemura K, Takao S, Shinchi H, et al. Role of positron emission tomography in decisions on treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13(5):435–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(3):392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chikamoto A, Inoue R, Komohara Y, et al. Preoperative high maximum standardized uptake value in association with glucose transporter 1 predicts poor prognosis in pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(7):2040–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Higashi T, Saga T, Nakamoto Y, et al. Relationship between retention index in dual-phase (18)F-FDG PET, and hexokinase-II and glucose transporter-1 expression in pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(2):173–80.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaneta T, Daisaki H, Ogawa M, et al. Use of count-based image reconstruction to evaluate the variability and repeatability of measured standardised uptake values. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu SL, Yang ZY, Zhou ZR, et al. Role of SUV(max) obtained by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with a solitary pancreatic lesion: predicting malignant potential and proliferation. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34(6):533–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(8):1028–61.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maemura K, Shinchi H, Noma H, et al. Comparison of hyper-fractionated accelerated and standard fractionated radiotherapy with concomitant low-dose gemcitabine for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res. 2008;28(4C):2369–72.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hammel P, Huguet F, van Laethem JL, et al. Effect of chemoradiotherapy vs chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib: the LAP07 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1844–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mellon EA, Jin WH, Frakes JM, et al. Predictors and survival for pathologic tumor response grade in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(3):391–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson JM, Mukherjee S, Brunner TB, et al. Correlation of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters with patterns of disease progression in locally advanced pancreatic cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017;29(6):370–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ariake K, Motoi F, Shimomura H, et al. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts recurrence in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(2):279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW, et al. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science. 2008;321(5897):1801–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shi S, Ji S, Qin Y, et al. Metabolic tumor burden is associated with major oncogenomic alterations and serum tumor markers in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Cancer Lett. 2015;360(2):227–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kurahara H, Maemura K, Mataki Y, et al. Significance of glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the therapeutic strategy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(5):1432–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Kurahara
    • 1
  • Kosei Maemura
    • 1
  • Yuko Mataki
    • 1
  • Masahiko Sakoda
    • 1
  • Satoshi Iino
    • 1
  • Yota Kawasaki
    • 1
  • Takaaki Arigami
    • 1
  • Shinichiro Mori
    • 1
  • Yuko Kijima
    • 1
  • Shinichi Ueno
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Shinchi
    • 3
  • Shoji Natsugoe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Digestive Surgery, Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKagoshima UniversityKagoshimaJapan
  2. 2.Clinical OncologyKagoshima UniversityKagoshimaJapan
  3. 3.Health SciencesKagoshima UniversityKagoshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations