Positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose for response monitoring in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer; a comparison of different analytical methods.
Positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose for response monitoring in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer; a comparison of different analytical methods.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.mibio.2003.09.007
复制
发表时间：
2003-09-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Lammertsma, Adriaan A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kroep, Judith R;Van Groeningen, Cornelis J;Lammertsma, Adriaan A
目的：确定2-脱氧-2-[18F]-氟-d -葡萄糖（FDG）正电子发射断层扫描（PET）监测局部晚期胃食管癌（LAGEC）反应的能力。此外，还选择了最佳的FDG-PET反应监测方法。程序：对13例接受新辅助顺铂和吉西他滨加粒细胞巨噬细胞集落刺激生长因子治疗的LAGEC （T2-3N0-1M0-1a）患者进行连续动态FDG-PET扫描，每3周进行一次。将标准FDG-PET方法非线性回归（NLR）与计算机断层扫描（CT）、超声内镜（EUS）、组织病理学以及21种简化的FDG-PET分析方法进行比较。结果：12例手术肿瘤中有5例在组织病理学上有反应，肿瘤细胞残留少于10%（42%）。与无应答者相比，这些患者FDG摄取的下降幅度更高（P=0.008）。早期（两个周期后）和晚期（完成诱导治疗后）反应评价的特异性分别为86%和100%，敏感性为100%。FDG-PET和EUS检查结果均优于CT。从21种分析FDG摄取的方法来看，定量Patlak分析、简化动力学法（SKM）和半定量体重校正标准化摄取值（SUV-BW）与NLR的相关性最好。结论：FDG-PET可靠地预测了LAGEC的反应。使用Patlak分析或更临床适用的SKM和SUV-BW进行FDG-PET测量是NLR的可接受替代方法。
PURPOSE: To determine the ability of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) to monitor response in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer (LAGEC). Additionally, optimal FDG-PET methods for response monitoring were selected.PROCEDURES: Sequential dynamic FDG-PET scans were performed in 13 patients with LAGEC (T2-3N0-1M0-1a) treated with neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine plus granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating growth factor at a three weekly schedule. The standard FDG-PET method, nonlinear regression (NLR), was compared with computed tomography (CT), endoscopic-ultrasound (EUS), and histopathology as well as with 21 simplified analytical FDG-PET methods.RESULTS: Five out of 12 operated tumors responded histopathologically with less than 10% residual tumorcells (42%). These had a higher decrease in FDG uptake compared with nonresponders (P=0.008). Early (after two cycles) and late (after completed induction therapy) response evaluation showed a specificity of 86% and 100%, respectively, and a sensitivity of 100%. Both FDG-PET and EUS were superior to CT. From 21 methods analyzing FDG uptake, the quantitative Patlak analysis, the simplified kinetic method (SKM), and the semiquantitative standardized uptake value corrected for bodyweight (SUV-BW) seemed to correlate best with NLR.CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET reliably predicted response in LAGEC. FDG-PET measurements using Patlak analysis or the more clinical applicable SKM and SUV-BW were acceptable alternatives to NLR.