title: Combined assessment of metabolic and volumetric changes for assessment of tumor response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.
abstract: By allowing simultaneous measurements of tumor volume and metabolic activity, integrated PET/CT opens up new approaches for assessing tumor response to therapy. The aim of this study was to determine whether combined assessment of tumor volume and metabolic activity improves the accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET for predicting histopathologic tumor response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty patients with locally advanced high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (10 men and 10 women; mean age, 49 +/- 17 y) were studied by (18)F-FDG PET/CT before and after preoperative therapy. CT tumor volume (CTvol) was measured by delineating tumor borders on consecutive slices of the CT scan. Mean and maximum (18)F-FDG standardized uptake value within this volume (SUVmean and SUVmax, respectively) were determined. Two indices of total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were calculated by multiplying tumor volume by SUVmean (TLGmean) and SUVmax (TLGmax). Changes in CTvol, SUVmean, SUVmax, TLGmean, and TLGmax after chemotherapy were correlated with histopathologic tumor response (> or =95% treatment-induced tumor necrosis). Accuracy for predicting histopathologic response was compared by receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Baseline SUVmax, SUVmean, CTvol, TLGmean, and TLGmax were 11.22 g/mL, 2.84 g/mL, 544.1 mL, 1,619.8 g, and 8852.9 g, respectively. After neoadjuvant therapy, all parameters except CTvol showed a significant decline (DeltaSUVmax = -51%, P < 0.001; DeltaSUVmean = -40%, P < 0.001; DeltaCTvol = -14%, P = 0.37; DeltaTLGmean = -44%, P = 0.006; and DeltaTLGmax = -54%, P = 0.001). SUV changes in histopathologic responders (n = 6) were significantly more pronounced than those in nonresponders (n = 14) (P = 0.001). Histopathologic response was well predicted by changes in SUVmean and SUVmax (area under ROC curve [AUC] = 1.0 and 0.98, respectively) followed by TLGmean (AUC = 0.77) and TLGmax (AUC = 0.74). In contrast, changes in CTvol did not allow prediction of treatment response (AUC = 0.48).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this population of patients with sarcoma, TLG was less accurate in predicting tumor response than were measurements of the intratumoral (18)F-FDG concentration (SUVmax, SUVmean). Further evaluation of TLG in larger patient populations and other tumor types is necessary to determine the value of this conceptually attractive parameter for assessing tumor response.
authors.affiliation: Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
authors.forename: Matthias R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Benz
authors.forename: Martin S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Allen-Auerbach
authors.forename: Fritz C
authors.initials: FC
authors.lastname: Eilber
authors.forename: Hui J J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Sarah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dry
authors.forename: Michael E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Phelps
authors.forename: Johannes
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Czernin
authors.forename: Wolfgang A
authors.initials: WA
authors.lastname: Weber
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006019:Glycolysis; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008297:Male; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000379:methods; D008875:Middle Aged; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals / Q000494:pharmacology; D012509:Sarcoma / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*
chemical_list: D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals
references.citation: Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):2046-53
references.pmid: 9800714
references.citation: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 Mar;102(1):75-84
references.pmid: 16897427
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Mar 1;22(5):900-8
references.pmid: 14990646
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1753-9
references.pmid: 17470865
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2004 Jan;45 Suppl 1:25S-35S
references.pmid: 14736833
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1997 Dec;15(12):3481-7
references.pmid: 9396401
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2004 May;45(5):797-801
references.pmid: 15136629
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18(8):1689-95
references.pmid: 10764429
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2006 Aug;47(8):1241-8
references.pmid: 16883000
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Feb 1;14(3):715-20
references.pmid: 18245531
references.citation: Radiology. 2006 May;239(2):472-80
references.pmid: 16543584
references.citation: Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):839-43
references.pmid: 6878708
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8362-70
references.pmid: 16293866
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jan 1;12(1):97-106
references.pmid: 16397030
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2000 Aug;41(8):1369-79
references.pmid: 10945530
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2006 Jun;47(6):1059-66
references.pmid: 16741317
references.citation: Cancer Treat Rev. 2007 Oct;33(6):533-41
references.pmid: 17764849
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16
references.pmid: 10655437
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Feb 1;24(4):619-25
references.pmid: 16446334
references.citation: Clin Positron Imaging. 1999 May;2(3):159-171
references.pmid: 14516540
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Aug 15;11(16):5928-34
references.pmid: 16115935
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jul 1;19(13):3203-9
references.pmid: 11432887
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2005 Apr;46(4):603-7
references.pmid: 15809482
references.citation: Cancer. 2005 Jan 15;103(2):339-48
references.pmid: 15578712
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 10;25(5):571-8
references.pmid: 17242397
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Apr;34(4):463-71
references.pmid: 17103167