These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 18F-FDG PET Response After Induction Chemotherapy Can Predict Who Will Benefit from Subsequent Esophagectomy After Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.
    Author: Xi M, Liao Z, Hofstetter WL, Komaki R, Ho L, Lin SH.
    Journal: J Nucl Med; 2017 Nov; 58(11):1756-1763. PubMed ID: 28522744.
    Abstract:
    This study aimed to determine whether 18F-FDG PET response after induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy can identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who may benefit from subsequent esophagectomy. Methods: We identified and analyzed 220 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who had received induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy, with or without surgery, with curative intent; all underwent 18F-FDG PET scanning before and after induction chemotherapy. 18F-FDG PET responders were defined as patients who achieved complete response (CR) after induction chemotherapy (maximum SUV ≤ 3.0). The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET response for patient outcomes was evaluated. Results: Overall, 86 patients had bimodality therapy (BMT; induction chemotherapy + chemoradiotherapy) and 134 had trimodality therapy (TMT; induction chemotherapy + chemoradiotherapy with surgery). Forty-eight patients (21.8%) achieved an 18F-FDG PET CR after induction chemotherapy. 18F-FDG PET CR was found to correlate with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in BMT patients. For TMT patients, 18F-FDG PET CR predicted pathologic response (P = 0.003) but not survival. Among 18F-FDG PET nonresponders, TMT patients had significantly better survival than did BMT patients (P < 0.001). However, among 18F-FDG PET responders, BMT patients had OS (P = 0.201) and PFS (P = 0.269) similar to that of TMT patients. After propensity score-matched analysis, 18F-FDG PET responders treated with BMT versus TMT still had comparable OS and PFS, but TMT was associated with better locoregional control. Conclusion:18F-FDG PET response to induction chemotherapy could be a useful imaging biomarker to identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who could benefit from subsequent esophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy. Compared with BMT, TMT can significantly improve survival in 18F-FDG PET nonresponders. However, outcomes for 18F-FDG PET responders were similar after either treatment (BMT or TMT). Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]