Importance of positron emission tomography for assessing the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments in T4 esophageal cancer

Tomoki Makino, Makoto Yamasaki, Koji Tanaka, Mitsuaki Tatsumi, Shuji Takiguchi, Jun Hatazawa, Masaki Mori, Yuichiro Doki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background There is no consensus strategy for treatment of T4 esophageal cancer, and because of this, a better evaluation of treatment response is crucial to establish personalized therapies. This study aimed to establish a useful system for evaluating treatment response in T4 esophageal cancer. Methods This study included 130 patients with cT4 esophageal cancer without distant metastasis who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography before and after a series of induction treatments comprising chemoradiation or chemotherapy. We evaluated the maximal standardized uptake value and treatment response. Results The mean ± standard deviation of standardized uptake value in the primary tumor before and after induction treatments were 13.8 ± 4.4 and 5.4 ± 4.1, respectively, and the mean standardized uptake value decrease was 58.4%. The most significant difference in survival between positron emission tomography-primary tumor responders and nonresponders was at a decrease of 60% standardized uptake value, based on every 10% stepwise cutoff analysis (2-year cause-specific survival: 60.2 vs 23.5%; hazard ratio = 2.705; P <.0001). With this cutoff value, the resectability (P =.0307), pathologic response (P =.0004), and pT stage (P <.0001) were associated with positron emission tomography-primary tumor response. Univariate analysis of 2-year cause-specific survival indicated a correlation between cause-specific survival and clinical stages according to TNM classification, esophageal perforation, positron emission tomography-primary tumor response, lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography before and after induction treatments, and operative resection. Multivariate analysis further identified positron emission tomography-primary tumor response (hazard ratio = 2.354; P =.0107), lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography after induction treatments (hazard ratio = 1.966; P =.0089), and operative resection (hazard ratio = 2.012; P =.0245) as independent prognostic predictors. Conclusion Positron emission tomography evaluation of the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments is important to formulate treatment strategies for cT4 esophageal cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)836-845
Number of pages10
JournalSurgery (United States)
Volume162
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Esophageal Neoplasms
Positron-Emission Tomography
Therapeutics
Survival
Neoplasms
Lymph Nodes
Esophageal Perforation
Neoplasm Staging
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Multivariate Analysis
Neoplasm Metastasis
Drug Therapy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Importance of positron emission tomography for assessing the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments in T4 esophageal cancer. / Makino, Tomoki; Yamasaki, Makoto; Tanaka, Koji; Tatsumi, Mitsuaki; Takiguchi, Shuji; Hatazawa, Jun; Mori, Masaki; Doki, Yuichiro.

In: Surgery (United States), Vol. 162, No. 4, 10.2017, p. 836-845.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Makino, Tomoki ; Yamasaki, Makoto ; Tanaka, Koji ; Tatsumi, Mitsuaki ; Takiguchi, Shuji ; Hatazawa, Jun ; Mori, Masaki ; Doki, Yuichiro. / Importance of positron emission tomography for assessing the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments in T4 esophageal cancer. In: Surgery (United States). 2017 ; Vol. 162, No. 4. pp. 836-845.
@article{b7d5bda274d0454882f30db48d038d3e,
title = "Importance of positron emission tomography for assessing the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments in T4 esophageal cancer",
abstract = "Background There is no consensus strategy for treatment of T4 esophageal cancer, and because of this, a better evaluation of treatment response is crucial to establish personalized therapies. This study aimed to establish a useful system for evaluating treatment response in T4 esophageal cancer. Methods This study included 130 patients with cT4 esophageal cancer without distant metastasis who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography before and after a series of induction treatments comprising chemoradiation or chemotherapy. We evaluated the maximal standardized uptake value and treatment response. Results The mean ± standard deviation of standardized uptake value in the primary tumor before and after induction treatments were 13.8 ± 4.4 and 5.4 ± 4.1, respectively, and the mean standardized uptake value decrease was 58.4{\%}. The most significant difference in survival between positron emission tomography-primary tumor responders and nonresponders was at a decrease of 60{\%} standardized uptake value, based on every 10{\%} stepwise cutoff analysis (2-year cause-specific survival: 60.2 vs 23.5{\%}; hazard ratio = 2.705; P <.0001). With this cutoff value, the resectability (P =.0307), pathologic response (P =.0004), and pT stage (P <.0001) were associated with positron emission tomography-primary tumor response. Univariate analysis of 2-year cause-specific survival indicated a correlation between cause-specific survival and clinical stages according to TNM classification, esophageal perforation, positron emission tomography-primary tumor response, lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography before and after induction treatments, and operative resection. Multivariate analysis further identified positron emission tomography-primary tumor response (hazard ratio = 2.354; P =.0107), lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography after induction treatments (hazard ratio = 1.966; P =.0089), and operative resection (hazard ratio = 2.012; P =.0245) as independent prognostic predictors. Conclusion Positron emission tomography evaluation of the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments is important to formulate treatment strategies for cT4 esophageal cancer.",
author = "Tomoki Makino and Makoto Yamasaki and Koji Tanaka and Mitsuaki Tatsumi and Shuji Takiguchi and Jun Hatazawa and Masaki Mori and Yuichiro Doki",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.surg.2017.06.007",
language = "English",
volume = "162",
pages = "836--845",
journal = "Surgery",
issn = "0039-6060",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Importance of positron emission tomography for assessing the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments in T4 esophageal cancer

AU - Makino, Tomoki

AU - Yamasaki, Makoto

AU - Tanaka, Koji

AU - Tatsumi, Mitsuaki

AU - Takiguchi, Shuji

AU - Hatazawa, Jun

AU - Mori, Masaki

AU - Doki, Yuichiro

PY - 2017/10

Y1 - 2017/10

N2 - Background There is no consensus strategy for treatment of T4 esophageal cancer, and because of this, a better evaluation of treatment response is crucial to establish personalized therapies. This study aimed to establish a useful system for evaluating treatment response in T4 esophageal cancer. Methods This study included 130 patients with cT4 esophageal cancer without distant metastasis who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography before and after a series of induction treatments comprising chemoradiation or chemotherapy. We evaluated the maximal standardized uptake value and treatment response. Results The mean ± standard deviation of standardized uptake value in the primary tumor before and after induction treatments were 13.8 ± 4.4 and 5.4 ± 4.1, respectively, and the mean standardized uptake value decrease was 58.4%. The most significant difference in survival between positron emission tomography-primary tumor responders and nonresponders was at a decrease of 60% standardized uptake value, based on every 10% stepwise cutoff analysis (2-year cause-specific survival: 60.2 vs 23.5%; hazard ratio = 2.705; P <.0001). With this cutoff value, the resectability (P =.0307), pathologic response (P =.0004), and pT stage (P <.0001) were associated with positron emission tomography-primary tumor response. Univariate analysis of 2-year cause-specific survival indicated a correlation between cause-specific survival and clinical stages according to TNM classification, esophageal perforation, positron emission tomography-primary tumor response, lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography before and after induction treatments, and operative resection. Multivariate analysis further identified positron emission tomography-primary tumor response (hazard ratio = 2.354; P =.0107), lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography after induction treatments (hazard ratio = 1.966; P =.0089), and operative resection (hazard ratio = 2.012; P =.0245) as independent prognostic predictors. Conclusion Positron emission tomography evaluation of the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments is important to formulate treatment strategies for cT4 esophageal cancer.

AB - Background There is no consensus strategy for treatment of T4 esophageal cancer, and because of this, a better evaluation of treatment response is crucial to establish personalized therapies. This study aimed to establish a useful system for evaluating treatment response in T4 esophageal cancer. Methods This study included 130 patients with cT4 esophageal cancer without distant metastasis who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography before and after a series of induction treatments comprising chemoradiation or chemotherapy. We evaluated the maximal standardized uptake value and treatment response. Results The mean ± standard deviation of standardized uptake value in the primary tumor before and after induction treatments were 13.8 ± 4.4 and 5.4 ± 4.1, respectively, and the mean standardized uptake value decrease was 58.4%. The most significant difference in survival between positron emission tomography-primary tumor responders and nonresponders was at a decrease of 60% standardized uptake value, based on every 10% stepwise cutoff analysis (2-year cause-specific survival: 60.2 vs 23.5%; hazard ratio = 2.705; P <.0001). With this cutoff value, the resectability (P =.0307), pathologic response (P =.0004), and pT stage (P <.0001) were associated with positron emission tomography-primary tumor response. Univariate analysis of 2-year cause-specific survival indicated a correlation between cause-specific survival and clinical stages according to TNM classification, esophageal perforation, positron emission tomography-primary tumor response, lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography before and after induction treatments, and operative resection. Multivariate analysis further identified positron emission tomography-primary tumor response (hazard ratio = 2.354; P =.0107), lymph node status evaluated by positron emission tomography after induction treatments (hazard ratio = 1.966; P =.0089), and operative resection (hazard ratio = 2.012; P =.0245) as independent prognostic predictors. Conclusion Positron emission tomography evaluation of the response of primary and metastatic lesions to induction treatments is important to formulate treatment strategies for cT4 esophageal cancer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85023200493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85023200493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.surg.2017.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.surg.2017.06.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 28711321

AN - SCOPUS:85023200493

VL - 162

SP - 836

EP - 845

JO - Surgery

JF - Surgery

SN - 0039-6060

IS - 4

ER -