liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluation of third treatment week as temporal window for assessing responsiveness on repeated FDG-PET scans in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients
Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6676-508X
RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Radiation Oncology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiation Oncology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Physica medica (Testo stampato), ISSN 1120-1797, E-ISSN 1724-191X, Vol. 46, p. 45-51Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose

Early assessment of tumour response to treatment with repeated FDG-PET-CT imaging has potential for treatment adaptation but it is unclear what the optimal time window for this evaluation is. Previous studies indicate that changes in SUVmean and the effective radiosensitivity (αeff, accounting for uptake variations and accumulated dose until the second FDG-PET-CT scan) are predictive of 2-year overall survival (OS) when imaging is performed before radiotherapy and during the second week. This study aims to investigate if multiple FDG-PET-derived quantities determined during the third treatment week have stronger predictive power.

Methods

Twenty-eight lung cancer patients were imaged with FDG-PET-CT before radiotherapy (PET1) and during the third week (PET2). SUVmean, SUVmax, SUVpeak, MTV41%–50% (Metabolic Tumour Volume), TLG41%–50% (Total Lesion Glycolysis) in PET1 and PET2 and their change (), as well as average αeff (α¯eff) and the negative fraction of αeff values (fαeff<0) were determined. Correlations were sought between FDG-PET-derived quantities and OS with ROC analysis.

Results

Neither SUVmean, SUVmax, SUVpeak in PET1 and PET2 (AUC = 0.5–0.6), nor their changes (AUC = 0.5–0.6) were significant for outcome prediction purposes. Lack of correlation with OS was also found for α¯eff (AUC = 0.5) and fαeff<0 (AUC = 0.5). Threshold-based quantities (MTV41%–50%, TLG41%–50%) and their changes had AUC = 0.5–0.7.

P-values were in all cases ≫0.05.

Conclusions

The poor OS predictive power of the quantities determined from repeated FDG-PET-CT images indicates that the third week of treatment might not be suitable for treatment response assessment. Comparatively, the second week during the treatment appears to be a better time window.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018. Vol. 46, p. 45-51
Keywords [en]
FDG-PET-CT, NSCLC, Treatment adaptation
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-144424DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.01.012ISI: 000427424700006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85043250109OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-144424DiVA, id: diva2:1176196
Available from: 2018-01-21 Created: 2018-01-21 Last updated: 2018-06-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lazzeroni, MartaDasu, AlexandruToma-Dasu, Iuliana
In the same journal
Physica medica (Testo stampato)
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 90 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf