4.7 Article

FDG-PET in the prediction of pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.033

Keywords

FDG-PET; esophageal cancer; pathologic response

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of 18 Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for predicting a pathologic response in locally advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Methods and Materials: All enrolled patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy and underwent two FDG-PET scans, before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We compared the results of the preoperative FDG-PET scans with the pathologic results. Results: From July 2001 to July 2004, 32 patients (29 men and 3 women) were enrolled in this study. Pathologic complete response (pCR) in the esophagus was achieved in 21 of 32 patients (66%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in the primary tumors of the preoperative FDG-PET were 27%, 95%, 75%, and 71%, respectively. In regional lymph nodes, these values were 16%, 98%, 36%, and 93%, respectively. The mean standardized uptake value (SUV) of primary tumors was initially 5.6 +/- 3.6 and changed to 1.5 +/- 1.3 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (p < 0.05). If analysis of metabolic response (SUV decrease, Delta SUV) was limited to initially highly metabolic primary tumors (SUV >= 4.0), pathologic response was correlated with metabolic response (p = 0.006). Conclusions: This study suggested that the pathologic response of an initially highly metabolic tumor after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy could be correlated with the metabolic response, and FDG-PET can provide additional information on tumor response to chemoradiotherapy. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available