Combined assessment of metabolic and volumetric changes for assessment of tumor response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.
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.
Benz
Matthias R
MR
Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Allen-Auerbach
Martin S
MS
Eilber
Fritz C
FC
Chen
Hui J J
HJ
Dry
Sarah
S
Phelps
Michael E
ME
Czernin
Johannes
J
Weber
Wolfgang A
WA
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*
D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals
Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):2046-53
9800714
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 Mar;102(1):75-84
16897427
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Mar 1;22(5):900-8
14990646
J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1753-9
17470865
J Nucl Med. 2004 Jan;45 Suppl 1:25S-35S
14736833
J Clin Oncol. 1997 Dec;15(12):3481-7
9396401
J Nucl Med. 2004 May;45(5):797-801
15136629
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18(8):1689-95
10764429
J Nucl Med. 2006 Aug;47(8):1241-8
16883000
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Feb 1;14(3):715-20
18245531
Radiology. 2006 May;239(2):472-80
16543584
Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):839-43
6878708
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8362-70
16293866
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jan 1;12(1):97-106
16397030
J Nucl Med. 2000 Aug;41(8):1369-79
10945530
J Nucl Med. 2006 Jun;47(6):1059-66
16741317
Cancer Treat Rev. 2007 Oct;33(6):533-41
17764849
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16
10655437
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Feb 1;24(4):619-25
16446334
Clin Positron Imaging. 1999 May;2(3):159-171
14516540
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Aug 15;11(16):5928-34
16115935
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jul 1;19(13):3203-9
11432887
J Nucl Med. 2005 Apr;46(4):603-7
15809482
Cancer. 2005 Jan 15;103(2):339-48
15578712
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 10;25(5):571-8
17242397
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Apr;34(4):463-71
17103167