Cargando…

A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the percentage change in (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) standard uptake value (SUV) between baseline and after one cycle of chemotherapy in patients categorized by RECIST 1.1 computed tomography (CT) as responders or non-responders after two cycles of th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crandall, John P., Tahari, Abdel K., Juergens, Rosalyn A., Brahmer, Julie R., Rudin, Charles M., Esposito, Giuseppe, Subramaniam, Deepa S., Knopp, Michael V., Hall, Nathan C., Gajwani, Prateek, Leal, Jeffrey P., Lodge, Martin A., O., Joo H., Gabrielson, Edward W., Shankar, Lalitha K., Wahl, Richard L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5247390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28102506
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0258-3
_version_ 1782497080513658880
author Crandall, John P.
Tahari, Abdel K.
Juergens, Rosalyn A.
Brahmer, Julie R.
Rudin, Charles M.
Esposito, Giuseppe
Subramaniam, Deepa S.
Knopp, Michael V.
Hall, Nathan C.
Gajwani, Prateek
Leal, Jeffrey P.
Lodge, Martin A.
O., Joo H.
Gabrielson, Edward W.
Shankar, Lalitha K.
Wahl, Richard L.
author_facet Crandall, John P.
Tahari, Abdel K.
Juergens, Rosalyn A.
Brahmer, Julie R.
Rudin, Charles M.
Esposito, Giuseppe
Subramaniam, Deepa S.
Knopp, Michael V.
Hall, Nathan C.
Gajwani, Prateek
Leal, Jeffrey P.
Lodge, Martin A.
O., Joo H.
Gabrielson, Edward W.
Shankar, Lalitha K.
Wahl, Richard L.
author_sort Crandall, John P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the percentage change in (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) standard uptake value (SUV) between baseline and after one cycle of chemotherapy in patients categorized by RECIST 1.1 computed tomography (CT) as responders or non-responders after two cycles of therapy. Change in (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake was also compared between these time points. Nine patients with newly diagnosed, operable, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were imaged with FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET), FLT PET/CT, and CT at baseline, following one cycle of neoadjuvant therapy (75 mg/m(2) docetaxel + 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin), and again after the second cycle of therapy. All patients had a biopsy prior to enrollment and underwent surgical resection within 4 weeks of post-cycle 2 imaging. RESULTS: Between baseline and post-cycle 1, non-responders had mean SULmax (maximum standard uptake value adjusted for lean body mass) increases of 7.0 and 3.4% for FDG and FLT, respectively. Responders had mean decreases of 44.8 and 32.0% in FDG and FLT SULmax, respectively, between baseline and post-cycle 1 imaging. On post-cycle 1 imaging, primary tumor FDG SUL values were significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (P = 0.016). Primary tumor FLT SUL values did not differ significantly between these groups. Using the change from baseline to post-cycle 1, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 for FDG and 0.78 for FLT in predicting anatomic tumor response after the second cycle of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Fractional decrease in FDG SULmax from baseline to post-cycle 1 imaging was significantly different between anatomic responders and non-responders, while percentage changes in FLT SULmax were not significantly different between these groups over the same period of time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5247390
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52473902017-02-02 A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC Crandall, John P. Tahari, Abdel K. Juergens, Rosalyn A. Brahmer, Julie R. Rudin, Charles M. Esposito, Giuseppe Subramaniam, Deepa S. Knopp, Michael V. Hall, Nathan C. Gajwani, Prateek Leal, Jeffrey P. Lodge, Martin A. O., Joo H. Gabrielson, Edward W. Shankar, Lalitha K. Wahl, Richard L. EJNMMI Res Original Research BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the percentage change in (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) standard uptake value (SUV) between baseline and after one cycle of chemotherapy in patients categorized by RECIST 1.1 computed tomography (CT) as responders or non-responders after two cycles of therapy. Change in (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake was also compared between these time points. Nine patients with newly diagnosed, operable, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were imaged with FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET), FLT PET/CT, and CT at baseline, following one cycle of neoadjuvant therapy (75 mg/m(2) docetaxel + 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin), and again after the second cycle of therapy. All patients had a biopsy prior to enrollment and underwent surgical resection within 4 weeks of post-cycle 2 imaging. RESULTS: Between baseline and post-cycle 1, non-responders had mean SULmax (maximum standard uptake value adjusted for lean body mass) increases of 7.0 and 3.4% for FDG and FLT, respectively. Responders had mean decreases of 44.8 and 32.0% in FDG and FLT SULmax, respectively, between baseline and post-cycle 1 imaging. On post-cycle 1 imaging, primary tumor FDG SUL values were significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (P = 0.016). Primary tumor FLT SUL values did not differ significantly between these groups. Using the change from baseline to post-cycle 1, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 for FDG and 0.78 for FLT in predicting anatomic tumor response after the second cycle of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Fractional decrease in FDG SULmax from baseline to post-cycle 1 imaging was significantly different between anatomic responders and non-responders, while percentage changes in FLT SULmax were not significantly different between these groups over the same period of time. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5247390/ /pubmed/28102506 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0258-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Crandall, John P.
Tahari, Abdel K.
Juergens, Rosalyn A.
Brahmer, Julie R.
Rudin, Charles M.
Esposito, Giuseppe
Subramaniam, Deepa S.
Knopp, Michael V.
Hall, Nathan C.
Gajwani, Prateek
Leal, Jeffrey P.
Lodge, Martin A.
O., Joo H.
Gabrielson, Edward W.
Shankar, Lalitha K.
Wahl, Richard L.
A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC
title A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC
title_full A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC
title_fullStr A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC
title_short A comparison of FLT to FDG PET/CT in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages IB–IIIA resectable NSCLC
title_sort comparison of flt to fdg pet/ct in the early assessment of chemotherapy response in stages ib–iiia resectable nsclc
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5247390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28102506
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0258-3
work_keys_str_mv AT crandalljohnp acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT tahariabdelk acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT juergensrosalyna acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT brahmerjulier acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT rudincharlesm acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT espositogiuseppe acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT subramaniamdeepas acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT knoppmichaelv acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT hallnathanc acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT gajwaniprateek acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT lealjeffreyp acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT lodgemartina acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT ojooh acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT gabrielsonedwardw acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT shankarlalithak acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT wahlrichardl acomparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT crandalljohnp comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT tahariabdelk comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT juergensrosalyna comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT brahmerjulier comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT rudincharlesm comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT espositogiuseppe comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT subramaniamdeepas comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT knoppmichaelv comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT hallnathanc comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT gajwaniprateek comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT lealjeffreyp comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT lodgemartina comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT ojooh comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT gabrielsonedwardw comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT shankarlalithak comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc
AT wahlrichardl comparisonofflttofdgpetctintheearlyassessmentofchemotherapyresponseinstagesibiiiaresectablensclc