4.5 Article

FDG-PET maximum standardized uptake value is prognostic for recurrence and survival after stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 89, 期 2, 页码 115-120

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.05.019

关键词

Stereotactic body radiation therapy; Non-small cell lung cancer; PET

资金

  1. NIH [P30 CA008748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Glucose metabolic activity measured by [F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (FOG-PET) has shown prognostic value in multiple malignancies, but results are often confounded by the inclusion of patients with various disease stages and undergoing various therapies. This study was designed to evaluate the prognostic value of tumor FOG uptake quantified by maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in a large group of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using consistent treatment techniques. Materials and methods: Two hundred nineteen lesions in 211 patients treated with definitive SBRT for stage I NSCLC were analyzed after a median follow-up of 25.2 months. Cox regression was used to determine associations between SUVmax. and overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and freedom from local recurrence (FFLR) or distant metastasis (FFDM). Results: SUVmax >3.0 was associated with worse OS (p < 0.001), FFLR (p = 0.003) and FFDM (p = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, OS was associated with SUVmax (HR 1.89, p = 0.03), gross tumor volume (GTV) (HR 1.94,p = 0.005) and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (HR 0.51,p = 0.008). DSS was associated only with SUVmax (HR 2.58, p = 0.04). Both LR (HR 11.47, p = 0.02) and DM (HR 3.75, p = 0.006) were also associated with higher SUVmax. Conclusion: In a large patient population, SUVmax >3.0 was associated with worse survival and a greater propensity for local recurrence and distant metastasis after SBRT for NSCLC. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据