Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Gastrointestinal Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) measured by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 151 patients with pathologically proven esophageal carcinoma (146 squamous cell carcinomas and 5 adenocarcinomas) who underwent pretreatment 18F-FDG PET. MTV and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) for the primary tumors were measured by 18F-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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

MTV, a volumetric parameter of 18F-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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rizk NP, Venkatraman E, Bains MS, Park B, Flores R, Tang L, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system does not accurately predict survival in patients receiving multimodality therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:507–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rizk N, Venkatraman E, Park B, Flores R, Bains MS, Rusch V. The prognostic importance of the number of involved lymph nodes in esophageal cancer: implications for revisions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:1374–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eloubeidi MA, Desmond R, Arguedas MR, Reed CE, Wilcox CM. Prognostic factors for the survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma in the U.S.: the importance of tumor length and lymph node status. Cancer. 2002;95:1434–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Choi JY, Jang HJ, Shim YM, Kim K, Lee KS, Lee KH, et al. 18F-FDG PET in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing curative surgery: prognostic implications. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1843–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi JY, Jang KT, Shim YM, Kim K, Ahn G, Lee KH, et al. Prognostic significance of vascular endothelial growth factor expression and microvessel density in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison with positron emission tomography. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1054–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi JY, Lee KH, Shim YM, Lee KS, Kim JJ, Kim SE, et al. Improved detection of individual nodal involvement in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus by FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:808–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hong D, Lunagomez S, Kim EE, Lee JH, Bresalier RS, Swisher SG, et al. Value of baseline positron emission tomography for predicting overall survival in patient with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104:1620–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miller TR, Grigsby PW. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:353–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen MK, Chen TH, Liu JP, Chang CC, Chie WC. Better prediction of prognosis for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma using primary tumor volume. Cancer. 2004;100:2160–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mukherji SK, Schmalfuss IM, Castelijns J, Mancuso AA. Clinical applications of tumor volume measurements for predicting outcome in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25:1425–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Basaki K, Abe Y, Aoki M, Kondo H, Hatayama Y, Nakaji S. Prognostic factors for survival in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:449–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee P, Weerasuriya DK, Lavori PW, Quon A, Hara W, Maxim PG, et al. Metabolic tumor burden predicts for disease progression and death in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:328–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Werner-Wasik M, Swann RS, Bradley J, Graham M, Emami B, Purdy J, et al. Increasing tumor volume is predictive of poor overall and progression-free survival: secondary analysis of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 93-11 phase I-II radiation dose-escalation study in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:385–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene FL. AJCC cancer staging manual. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhong X, Yu J, Zhang B, Mu D, Zhang W, Li D, et al. Using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to estimate the length of gross tumor in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:136–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zheng Y, Cai T, Feng Z. Application of the time-dependent ROC curves for prognostic accuracy with multiple biomarkers. Biometrics. 2006;62:279–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics. 2000;56:337–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. Maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of esophageal cancer predicts stage, tumor biology, and survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:391–4; discussion 4–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rizk N, Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Bains MS, Larson S, et al. Preoperative 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography standardized uptake values predict survival after esophageal adenocarcinoma resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1076–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Westreenen HL, Plukker JT, Cobben DC, Verhoogt CJ, Groen H, Jager PL. Prognostic value of the standardized uptake value in esophageal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:436–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Omloo JM, Sloof GW, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Jager PL, van Dullemen HM, et al. Importance of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and endoscopic ultrasonography parameters in predicting survival following surgery for esophageal cancer. Endoscopy. 2008;40:464–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roedl JB, Colen RR, Holalkere NS, Fischman AJ, Choi NC, Blake MA. Adenocarcinomas of the esophagus: response to chemoradiotherapy is associated with decrease of metabolic tumor volume as measured on PET-CT. Comparison to histopathologic and clinical response evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89:278–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mamede M, Abreu ELP, Oliva MR, Nose V, Mamon H, Gerbaudo VH. FDG-PET/CT tumor segmentation-derived indices of metabolic activity to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy and progression-free survival in esophageal cancer: correlation with histopathology results. Am J Clin Oncol. 2007;30:377–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Keyes JW, Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:392–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by a grant from the Korea Health 21 R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (02-PJ3-PG6-EV06-0002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joon Young Choi MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hyun, S.H., Choi, J.Y., Shim, Y.M. et al. Prognostic Value of Metabolic Tumor Volume Measured by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 17, 115–122 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0719-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0719-7

Keywords

Navigation