3.8 Article

Prognostic value of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET-CT in radiotherapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 179-187

出版社

KOREAN SOC THERAPEUTIC RADIOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.3857/roj.2015.33.3.179

关键词

Radiotherapy; Positron emission tomography; Hepatocellular carcinoma

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictable value of pretreatment F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (F-18-FDG PET-CT) in radiotherapy (RT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 36 stage I-IV HCC patients treated with RT. F-18-FDG PET-CT was performed before RT. Treatment target was determined HCC or PVTT lesions by treatment aim. They were irradiated at a median prescription dose of 50 Gy. The response was evaluated within 3 months after completion of RT using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Response rate, overall survival (OS), and the pattern of failure (POF) were analyzed. Results: The response rate was 61.1%. The statistically significant prognostic factor affecting response in RT field was maximal standardized uptake value (maxSUV) only. The high SUV group (maxSUV >= 5.1) showed the better radiologic response than the low SUV group (maxSUV < 5.1). The median OS were 996.0 days in definitive group and 144.0 days in palliative group. Factors affecting OS were the %reduction of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level in the definitive group and Child-Pugh class in the palliative group. To predict the POF, maxSUV based on the cutoff value of 5.1 was the only significant factor in distant metastasis group. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the maxSUV of F-18-FDG PET-CT may be a prognostic factor for treatment outcome and the POF after RT. A %reduction of AFP level and Child-Pugh class could be used to predict OS in HCC.

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

3.8
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