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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |