Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Staging, Restaging and Response Evaluation of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

  • Chapter
Diseases of the Heart and Chest, Including Breast 2011–2014

  • 867 Accesses

Abstract

Imaging is important in the clinical staging of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is typically performed with computed tomography (CT). Positron emission tomography (PET) using [18F]fluro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) compliments conventional radiologic assessment when evaluating patients with NSCLC and is being routinely used to improve the detection of nodal and extrathoracic metastases. FDG-PET is also being evaluated for assessing prognosis and therapeutic response. This chapter discusses staging, restaging and assessing treatment response with an emphasis on the appropriate clinical use of FDG-PET in managing patients with NSCLC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rami-Porta R, Ball D, Crowley J et al (2007) The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the T descriptors in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2:593–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rusch VW, Crowley J, Giroux DJ et al (2007) The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the N descriptors in the forthcoming seventh edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2:603–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Postmus PE, Brambilla E, Chansky K et al (2007) The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for revision of the M descriptors in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification of lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2:686–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldstraw P, ed (2009) IASLC Staging Reference Card in Thoracic Oncology, Editorial Rx Press, New Milford, PA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bruzzi JF, Komaki R, Walsh GL et al (2008) Imaging of non-small cell lung cancer of the superior sulcus: part 2: initial staging and assessment of resectability and therapeutic response. RadioGraphis 28:561–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruzzi JF, Komaki R, Walsh GL et al (2008) Imaging of non-small cell lung cancer of the superior sulcus: part 1: anatomy, clinical manifestations, and management. RadioGraphics 28:551–560; quiz 620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bilsky MH, Vitaz TW, Boland PJ (2002) Surgical treatment of superior sulcus tumors with spinal and brachial plexus involvement. J Neurosurg 97(3 Suppl):301–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Prenzel KL, Monig SP, Sinning JM et al (2003) Lymph node size and metastatic infiltration in non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 123:463–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Toloza EM, Harpole L, Detterbeck F, McCrory DC (2003) Invasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence. Chest 123(1 Suppl):S157–S166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Birim O, Kappetein AP, Stijnen T, Bogers AJ (2005) Meta-analysis of positron emission tomographic and computed tomographic imaging in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastases in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 79:375–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT et al (2003) Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 229(2):526–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Langen AJ, Raijmakers P, Riphagen I et al (2006) The size of mediastinal lymph nodes and its relation with metastatic involvement: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 29:26–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reed CE, Harpole DH, Posther KE et al (2003) Results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0050 trial: the utility of positron emission tomography in staging potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 126:1943–1951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Verboom P, Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS et al (2003) Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:1444–1449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF et al (2002) Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359:1388–1393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP et al (2001) High rate of detection of unsuspected distant metastases by PET in apparent stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for radical radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:287–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Viney RC, Boyer MJ, King MT et al (2004) Randomized controlled trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2357–2362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lardinois D, Weder W, Roudas M et al (2005) Etiology of solitary extrapulmonary positron emission tomography and computed tomography findings in patients with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:6846–6853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Colice GL, Rubins J, Unger M (2003) Follow-up and surveillance of the lung cancer patient following curative-intent therapy. Chest 123(1 Suppl):S272–S283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Walsh GL, O’Connor M, Willis KM et al (1995) Is follow-up of lung cancer patients after resection medically indicated and cost-effective? Ann Thorac Surg 60:1563–1672

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Westeel V, Choma D, Clement F et al (2000) Relevance of an intensive postoperative follow-up after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1185–1190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP et al (2001) The utility of (18)F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med 42:1605–1613

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hellwig D, Groschel A, Graeter TP et al (2006) Diagnostic performance and prognostic impact of FDG-PET in suspected recurrence of surgically treated non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:13–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Curran WJ Jr, Herbert SH, Stafford PM et al (l 992) Should patients with post-resection locoregional recurrence of lung cancer receive aggressive therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 24:25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J (2006) RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 42:1031–1039

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. De Leyn P, Stroobants S, De Wever W et al (2006) Prospective comparative study of integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan compared with remediastinoscopy in the assessment of residual mediastinal lymph node disease after induction chemotherapy for mediastinoscopy-proven stage IIIA-N2 Non-small-cell lung cancer: a Leuven Lung Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 24:3333–3339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F et al (2007) Repeat 18F-FDG PET for monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 55:165–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ojha B (2006) Restaging patients with N2 (stage IIIa) non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:1229–1235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pöttgen C, Levegrun S, Theegarten D et al (2006) Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 12:97–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F et al (2007) 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:463–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ohtsuka T, Nomori H, Ebihara A et al (2006) FDG-PET imaging for lymph node staging and pathologic tumor response after neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 12:89–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B et al (2003) Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol 21:2651–2657

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF et al (2005) Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18]F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8362–8370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U et al (1999) Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 35:1773–1782

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S et al (2006) Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 47:1059–1066

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl l):S122–S150

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Diagnostic Imaging, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Jeremy J. Erasmus

Authors
  1. Jeremy J. Erasmus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland

    J. Hodler

  2. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland

    G. K. von Schulthess

  3. Kilchberg/Zurich, Switzerland

    Ch. L. Zollikofer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Erasmus, J.J. (2011). Staging, Restaging and Response Evaluation of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. In: Hodler, J., von Schulthess, G.K., Zollikofer, C.L. (eds) Diseases of the Heart and Chest, Including Breast 2011–2014. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1938-6_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1938-6_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-1937-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-1938-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation