Cargando…
Positron emission tomography complete metabolic response as a favorable prognostic predictor in esophageal cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/cisplatin/5-fluorouracil
BACKGROUND: (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography is useful in diagnosing lymph node and distant metastases of esophageal cancer. However, its value for predicting survival is controversial. AIM: To evaluate the value of PET complete metabolic response (CMR)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085515/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33959478 http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v12.i4.249 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography is useful in diagnosing lymph node and distant metastases of esophageal cancer. However, its value for predicting survival is controversial. AIM: To evaluate the value of PET complete metabolic response (CMR) as a prognostic predictor for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Between June 2013 and December 2017, 58 patients with squamous cell esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in Oita University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Tumors were clinically staged using fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/computed tomography before and after NAC. After NAC, maximal standardized uptake value ≤ 2.5 was defined as PET-CMR, and maximal standardized uptake value > 2.5 was defined as non-PET-CMR. We compared short-term outcomes between the PET-CMR group and non-PET-CMR group and evaluated prognostic factors by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The PET-CMR group included 22 patients, and the non-PET-CMR group included 36 patients. There were no significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications between the two groups. Five-year relapse-free survival and overall survival in the PET-CMR group were significantly more favorable than those in the non-PET-CMR group (38.6 mo vs 20.8 mo, P = 0.021; 42.8 mo vs 25.1 mo, P = 0.011, respectively). PET-CMR was a significant prognostic factor in terms of relapse-free survival by univariate analysis (hazard ratio: 2.523; 95% confidence interval: 1.034–7.063; P < 0.041). Particularly, PET-computed tomography negative N was an independent prognostic factor of relapse-free survival and overall survival by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: PET-CMR after NAC is considered a favorable prognostic factor for esophageal cancer. Evaluation by PET-computed tomography could be useful in clinical decision making for esophageal cancer. |
---|