Cargando…
Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study
BACKGROUND: An accurate evaluation of neoadjuvant treatment is important to maximize the prognostic benefit of this strategy in each individual patient. The main aim of the present study is to investigate the difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron em...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164457/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34095729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12418 |
_version_ | 1783701120039780352 |
---|---|
author | Akita, Hirofumi Takahashi, Hidenori Eguchi, Hidetoshi Asukai, Kei Hasegawa, Shinichiro Wada, Hiroshi Iwagami, Yoshifumi Yamada, Daisaku Tomimaru, Yoshito Noda, Takehiro Gotoh, Kunihito Kobayashi, Shogo Doki, Yuichiro Sakon, Masato |
author_facet | Akita, Hirofumi Takahashi, Hidenori Eguchi, Hidetoshi Asukai, Kei Hasegawa, Shinichiro Wada, Hiroshi Iwagami, Yoshifumi Yamada, Daisaku Tomimaru, Yoshito Noda, Takehiro Gotoh, Kunihito Kobayashi, Shogo Doki, Yuichiro Sakon, Masato |
author_sort | Akita, Hirofumi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: An accurate evaluation of neoadjuvant treatment is important to maximize the prognostic benefit of this strategy in each individual patient. The main aim of the present study is to investigate the difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) in evaluating the response to neoadjuvant treatment for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. METHODS: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with positive standard uptake values (SUV) on FDG‐PET before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) were enrolled (n = 141). In all patients, CA19‐9 and FDG‐PET were evaluated before the initiation of and after the completion of NACRT. The statuses of CA19‐9 and FDG uptake alterations during NACRT were assessed in association with survival and tumor recurrence profiles. RESULTS: A favorable response in each CA19‐9 and FDG‐PET was significantly related to better survival, respectively, than the unfavorable response (44.3% vs 19.5%, P < .001 and 45.8% vs 24.6%, P < .001). The status of CA19‐9 was significantly associated with the incidence of distant recurrence whereas the status of FDG‐PET was significantly associated with the incidence of local recurrence, and only patients with a favorable response in both CA19‐9 and PET statuses showed a significantly better survival than the others (5‐year survival: 56% vs 24%, P < .001), and those with unfavorable response in either of CA19‐9 or PET status showed similar poor survival to those with unfavorable in both (P = .164). CONCLUSION: CA19‐9 and PET evaluation provided oncologically different risk assessments in terms of tumor recurrence profile, and favorable response in both CA19‐9 and FDG‐PET were necessary to achieve prognostic benefit from NACRT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8164457 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81644572021-06-04 Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study Akita, Hirofumi Takahashi, Hidenori Eguchi, Hidetoshi Asukai, Kei Hasegawa, Shinichiro Wada, Hiroshi Iwagami, Yoshifumi Yamada, Daisaku Tomimaru, Yoshito Noda, Takehiro Gotoh, Kunihito Kobayashi, Shogo Doki, Yuichiro Sakon, Masato Ann Gastroenterol Surg Original Articles BACKGROUND: An accurate evaluation of neoadjuvant treatment is important to maximize the prognostic benefit of this strategy in each individual patient. The main aim of the present study is to investigate the difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) in evaluating the response to neoadjuvant treatment for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. METHODS: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with positive standard uptake values (SUV) on FDG‐PET before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) were enrolled (n = 141). In all patients, CA19‐9 and FDG‐PET were evaluated before the initiation of and after the completion of NACRT. The statuses of CA19‐9 and FDG uptake alterations during NACRT were assessed in association with survival and tumor recurrence profiles. RESULTS: A favorable response in each CA19‐9 and FDG‐PET was significantly related to better survival, respectively, than the unfavorable response (44.3% vs 19.5%, P < .001 and 45.8% vs 24.6%, P < .001). The status of CA19‐9 was significantly associated with the incidence of distant recurrence whereas the status of FDG‐PET was significantly associated with the incidence of local recurrence, and only patients with a favorable response in both CA19‐9 and PET statuses showed a significantly better survival than the others (5‐year survival: 56% vs 24%, P < .001), and those with unfavorable response in either of CA19‐9 or PET status showed similar poor survival to those with unfavorable in both (P = .164). CONCLUSION: CA19‐9 and PET evaluation provided oncologically different risk assessments in terms of tumor recurrence profile, and favorable response in both CA19‐9 and FDG‐PET were necessary to achieve prognostic benefit from NACRT. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8164457/ /pubmed/34095729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12418 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Akita, Hirofumi Takahashi, Hidenori Eguchi, Hidetoshi Asukai, Kei Hasegawa, Shinichiro Wada, Hiroshi Iwagami, Yoshifumi Yamada, Daisaku Tomimaru, Yoshito Noda, Takehiro Gotoh, Kunihito Kobayashi, Shogo Doki, Yuichiro Sakon, Masato Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study |
title | Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study |
title_full | Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study |
title_fullStr | Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study |
title_full_unstemmed | Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study |
title_short | Difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of a dual‐center study |
title_sort | difference between carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 and fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the treatment efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: results of a dual‐center study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164457/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34095729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12418 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT akitahirofumi differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT takahashihidenori differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT eguchihidetoshi differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT asukaikei differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT hasegawashinichiro differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT wadahiroshi differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT iwagamiyoshifumi differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT yamadadaisaku differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT tomimaruyoshito differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT nodatakehiro differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT gotohkunihito differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT kobayashishogo differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT dokiyuichiro differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy AT sakonmasato differencebetweencarbohydrateantigen199andfluorine18fluorodeoxyglucosepositronemissiontomographyinevaluatingthetreatmentefficacyofneoadjuvanttreatmentinpatientswithresectableandborderlineresectablepancreaticductaladenocarcinomaresultsofadualcenterstudy |