Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tumour length measured on PET-CT predicts the most appropriate stage-dependent therapeutic approach in oesophageal cancer

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the accuracy of determining the most appropriate treatment approach based on a visual analysis on combined PET-CT, based on a visual analysis on PET (reviewed side-by-side with CT) and based on tumour length measurements (on PET and PET-CT). Tumour length, SUV, and the length-SUV index (length × SUV) were assessed (on PET and PET-CT) in benign oesophageal lesions (reflux oesophagitis; n = 29), in potentially curable stages of oesophageal cancer (Tis; T1-T3NxM0; curable group; n = 52), and in stages of oesophageal cancer best treated with palliative therapy (T4NxMx; TxNxM1; palliative group; n = 30). All lesions were histopathologically proven. Based on a visual analysis, PET-CT (sensitivity: 77%;specificity: 96%) was more accurate than PET (sensitivity: 67%; specificity: 89%) in assessing the appropriate treatment (curative vs. palliative). The length-SUV index was the most accurate quantitative parameter to distinguish palliative from curable stages (sensitivity: 93%; specificity: 90%) and to predict survival. The highest overall accuracy was reached when combining the results of the quantitative (length-SUV index) analysis with those of the qualitative (visual) analysis (sensitivity: 93%; specificity: 96%). Moreover, neither tumour length nor SUV can be used to distinguish reflux oesophagitis from early malignant lesions (T1 stage). Tumour length measured with PET-CT or PET is associated with stage and overall survival of oesophageal cancer and helps to guide the appropriate treatment approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eloubeidi MA, Desmond R, Arguedas MR, Reed CE, Wilcox CM (2002) Prognostic factors for the survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma in the U.S.: the importance of tumor length and lymph node status. Cancer 95:1434–1443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gill PG, Denham JW, Jamieson GG, Devitt PG, Yeoh E, Olweny C (1992) Patterns of treatment failure and prognostic factors associated with the treatment of esophageal carcinoma with chemotherapy and radiotherapy either as sole treatment or followed by surgery. J Clin Oncol 10:1037–1043

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Igaki H, Kato H, Tachimori Y, Sato H, Daiko H, Nakanishi Y (2001) Prognostic evaluation for squamous cell carcinomas of the lower thoracic esophagus treated with three-field lymph node dissection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 19:887–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Urba SG, Orringer MB, Turrisi A, Iannettoni M, Forastiere A, Strawderman M (2001) Randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 19:305–313

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Griffiths EA, Brummell Z, Gorthi G, Pritchard SA, Welch IM (2006) Tumor length as a prognostic factor in esophageal malignancy: univariate and multivariate survival analyses. J Surg Oncol 15:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rice TW, Zuccaro G Jr, Adelstein DJ, Rybicki LA, Blackstone EH, Goldblum JR (1998) Esophageal carcinoma: depth of tumor invasion is predictive of regional lymph node status. Ann Thorac Surg 65:787–792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rice TW, Adelstein DJ (1997) Precise clinical staging allows treatment modification of patients with esophageal carcinoma. Oncology (Williston Park) 11:58–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sherman CA, Turrisi AT, Wallace MB, Reed CE (2002) Locally advanced esophageal cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 3:475–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ohja B, Bartolucci AA, Eloubeidi MA (2005) The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration, integrated positron emission tomography with computed tomography, and computed tomography in restaging patients with esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:1232–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, Peters JH, Chandrasoma P, DeMeester TR (2001) Curative resection for esophageal adenocarcinoma: analysis of 100 en bloc esophagectomies. Ann Surg 234:520–530

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, Kelly A, Keeling N, Hennessy TP (1996) A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 335:462–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mamede M, El Fakhri G, Abreu-e-Lima P, Gandler W, Nosé V, Gerbaudo VH (2007) Pre-operative estimation of esophageal tumor metabolic length in FDG-PET images with surgical pathology confirmation. Ann Nucl Med 21:553–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Konski A, Doss M, Milestone B, Haluszka O, Hanlon A, Freedman G, Adler L (2005) The integration of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography and endoscopic ultrasound in the treatment-planning process for esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:1123–1128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi JY, Jang HJ, Shim YM, Kim K, Lee KS, Lee KH, Choi Y, Choe YS, Kim BT (2004) 18F-FDG PET in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing curative surgery: prognostic implications. J Nucl Med 45:1843–1850

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F, Becker K, Busch R, Herrmann K, Wieder H, Fink U, Schwaiger M, Siewert JR (2006) Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 24:4692–4698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wieder HA, Beer AJ, Lordick F, Ott K, Fischer M, Rummeny EJ, Ziegler S, Siewer JR, Schwaiger M (2005) Comparison of changes in tumor metabolic activity and tumor size during chemotherapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Nucl Med 46:2029–2034

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dickson GH, Singh KK, Escofet X, Kelley K (2001) Validation of a modified GTNM classification in peri-junctional oesophago-gastric carcinoma and its use as a prognostic indicator. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:641–644

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Korst RJ, Rusch VW, Venkatraman E, Bains MS, Burt ME, Downey RJ, Ginsberg RJ (1998) Proposed revision of the staging classification for esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 115:660–669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rybicki LA, Adelstein DJ, Murthy SC, DeCamp MM, Goldblum JR (2003) Refining esophageal cancer staging. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 125:1103–1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhutani MS, Barde CJ, Markert RJ, Gopalswamy N (2002) Length of esophageal cancer and degree of luminal stenosis during upper endoscopy predict T stage by endoscopic ultrasound. Endoscopy 34:461–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Dam J (1994) Endosonographic evaluation of the patient with esophageal carcinoma. Chest Surg Clin N Am 4:269–284

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Byrne MF, Jowell PS (2002) Gastrointestinal imaging: endoscopic ultrasound. Gastroenterology 122:1631–1648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Halvorsen RA Jr, Magruder-Habib K, Foster WL Jr, Roberts L Jr, Postlethwait RW, Thompson WM (1986) Esophageal cancer staging by CT: long-term follow-up study. Radiology 161:147–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Abdominal and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA

    Johannes B. Roedl, Dushyant V. Sahani, Rivka R. Colen, Peter R. Mueller & Michael A. Blake

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA

    Johannes B. Roedl, Rivka R. Colen & Alan J. Fischman

  3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Fruit Street 55, 02114, Boston, USA

    Johannes B. Roedl

Authors
  1. Johannes B. Roedl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dushyant V. Sahani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rivka R. Colen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan J. Fischman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter R. Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael A. Blake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes B. Roedl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roedl, J.B., Sahani, D.V., Colen, R.R. et al. Tumour length measured on PET-CT predicts the most appropriate stage-dependent therapeutic approach in oesophageal cancer. Eur Radiol 18, 2833–2840 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1078-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1078-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation