4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Early change in glucose metabolic rate measured using FDG-PET in patients with high-grade glioma predicts response to temozolomide but not temozolomide plus radiotherapy

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.043

关键词

positron emission tomography; fluorodeoxyglucose; temozolomide; high-grade glioma; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the ability of positron emission tomography (PET) to predict response to temozolomide vs. temozolomide plus radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Nineteen patients with high-grade glioma (HGG) were studied. Patients with recurrent glioma received temozolomide 75 mg/m(2) daily for 7 weeks (n = 8). Newly diagnosed patients received temozolomide 75 mg/m(2) daily plus radiotherapy 60 Gy/30 fractions over 6 weeks, followed by six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide 200 mg/m(2)/day (Days 1-5 q28) starting 1 month after radiotherapy (n = 11). [F-18]Fluorodeoxy-glucose ([F-18]FDG) PET scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed at baseline, and 7 and 19 weeks after initiation of temozolomide administration. Changes in glucose metabolic rate (MRGlu) and MRI response were correlated with patient survival. Results: In the temozolomide-alone group, patients who survived > 26 vs. <= 26 weeks showed a greater reduction in MRGlu measured at 7 weeks with median changes of -34% and -4%, respectively (p = 0.02). PET responders, defined as a reduction in MRGlu >= 25%, survived longer than nonresponders with mean survival times of 75 weeks (95% CI, 34-115 vs. 20 weeks (95% CI, 14-26) (p = 0.0067). In the small group of patients studied, there was no relationship between MRI response and survival (p = 0.52). For patients receiving temozolomide plus radiotherapy, there was no difference in survival between PET responders and nonresponders (p = 0.32). Conclusions: Early changes in MRGlu predict response to temozolomide, but not temozolomide plus radiotherapy. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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