4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

[18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 34, 页码 8828-8834

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7079

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA87721, CA65537] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a significant prognostic factor for the Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (ESFTs). [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a noninvasive imaging modality that accurately predicts histopathologic response in several malignancies. To determine the prognostic value of FDG PET response for progression-free survival (PFS) in ESFTs, we reviewed the University of Washington Medical Center experience. Patients and Methods Thirty-six patients with ESFTs were evaluated by FDG PET. All patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. FDG PET standard uptake values before (SUV1) and after (SUV2) chemotherapy were analyzed and correlated with chemotherapy response, as assessed by histopathology in surgically excised tumors. Thirty-four patients had both SUV1 and SUV2. Results The mean SUV1, SUV2, and ratio of SUV2 to SUV1 (SUV2:1) were 7.9 (range, 2.3 to 32.8), 2.1 (range, 0 to 4.3), and 0.36 (range, 0.00 to 1.00), respectively. Good FDG PET response was defined as SUV2 less than 2.5 or SUV2:1 <= 0.5. FDG PET response by SUV2 or SUV2:1 was concordant with histologic response in 68% and 69% of patients, respectively. SUV2 was associated with outcome (4-year PFS 72% for SUV2 < 2.5 v 27% for SUV2 >= 2.5, P = .01 for all patients; 80% for SUV2 < 2.5 v 33% for SUV2 >= 2.5, P = .036 for localized at diagnosis patients). SUV2:1 <= 0.5 was not predictive of PFS. Conclusion FDG PET imaging of ESFTs correlates with histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. SUV2 less than 2.5 is predictive of PFS independent of initial disease stage.

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