4.6 Review

FDG PET/CT Can Assess the Response of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: Evidence From Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

期刊

CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 371-375

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001166

关键词

PET/CT; rectal adenocarcinoma; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; tumor regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is indicated in locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma where there is a high risk of local recurrence based on preoperative imaging. Optimal radiological assessment of CRT response is unknown, and metabolic assessment of the tumor has been suggested to gauge response before surgical resection. Patients and Methods A systematic search of the MEDLINE database was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement to identify papers comparing pre- and post-CRT PET/CT in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma with histopathological assessment of tumor regression. Papers were assessed with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool. Meta-analysis was performed for response index (RI) and SUVmax post-CRT. Results Ten of 69 studies met inclusion criteria containing a total of 538 patients. Methodological quality was high with low heterogeneity. In all studies, post-CRT PET/CT showed a reduction in SUVmax and the RI irrespective of histological findings. Tumors confirmed to have regressed after CRT had a mean difference of 12.21% higher RI (95% confidence interval, 6.51-17.91; P < 0.00001) compared with nonresponders. Mean difference between pre- and post-CRT SUVmax groups was -2.48 (95% confidence interval, -3.06 to -1.89; P < 0.00001) with histopathological responders having a lower post-CRT SUVmax. Conclusions The available evidence suggests that PET/CT may be a useful addition to the current imaging modalities in the assessment of treatment response.

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

4.6
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