4.5 Article

Prognostic value of 18F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside PET/CT in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 106, 期 11, 页码 1554-1560

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cas.12771

关键词

F-18-fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA); F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG); non-small-cell lung cancer; positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT); prognosis

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26293282] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the prognostic value of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using F-18-fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Thirty-eight patients with advanced NSCLC (stage III, 23 patients; stage IV, 15 patients) underwent FAZA and FDG PET/CT before treatment. The PET parameters (tumor-to-muscle ratio [T/M] at 1 and 2 h for FAZA, maximum standardized uptake value for FDG) in the primary lesion and lymph node (LN) metastasis and clinical parameters were compared concerning their effects on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In our univariate analysis of all patients, clinical stage and FAZA T/M in LNs at 1 and 2 h were predictive of PFS (P = 0.021, 0.028, and 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis also indicated that clinical stage and FAZA T/M in LNs at 1 and 2 h were independent predictors of PFS. Subgroup analysis of chemoradiotherapy-treated stage III patients revealed that only FAZA T/M in LNs at 2 h was predictive of PFS (P = 0.025). The FDG PET/CT parameters were not predictive of PFS. No parameter was a significant predictor of OS. In patients with advanced NSCLC, FAZA uptake in LNs, but not in primary lesions, was predictive of treatment outcome. These results suggest the importance of characterization of LN metastases in advanced NSCLC patients.

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