4.7 Article

Prognostic Value of Metabolic Tumor Volume Measured by (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 115-122

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0719-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [02-PJ3-PG6-EV06-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) measured by (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET) in patients with esophageal carcinoma. We retrospectively reviewed 151 patients with pathologically proven esophageal carcinoma (146 squamous cell carcinomas and 5 adenocarcinomas) who underwent pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET. MTV and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) for the primary tumors were measured by (18)F-FDG PET. The prognostic significance of MTV, SUVmax, and other clinicopathological variables was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. To further evaluate and compare the predictive performance of PET parameters, MTV and SUVmax, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used. In the univariate analysis, age, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) factors, MTV, and SUVmax of primary tumor were significant predictors of survival. On multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, and treatment modality, independent predictive factors associated with decreased overall survival were T stage [hazard ratio (HR) 4.325, P = 0.006], M stage (HR 2.009, P = 0.007), and MTV (HR 1.013, P = 0.021). SUVmax was not a significant factor (HR 0.97, P = 0.061). On time-dependent ROC analysis, MTV showed good predictive performance for overall survival consistently better than SUVmax. MTV, a volumetric parameter of (18)F-FDG PET, is an important independent prognostic factor for survival and a better predictor of survival than SUVmax for the primary tumor in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

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