Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:42:59.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

18FDG-PET metabolic response of non-small-cell lung cancer to chemoradiotherapy with long-term follow-up

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2017

Federico Ampil ,
Gloria Caldito  and
Troy Richards
Federico Ampil*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology/Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
Gloria Caldito
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
Troy Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology/Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
*
Correspondence to: Federico Ampil, Department of Radiology/Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana 71103, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

18Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) can indicate the presence or absence of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment. We present a description of the FDG-PET results following the contemporary management of locally advanced NSCLC including long-term outcomes.

Methodology

The study participants were eight long-term survivors with metabolic tumour response (MTR) shown on FDG-PET following chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced stage NSCLC between June 2005 and April 2009.

Results

After therapy, MTR was complete in five patients; four subjects were free of cancer, and one patient experienced progression of disease at the time of last follow-up. Of the three individuals with incomplete MTRs, distant metastases developed in two patients, and one subject remained disease-free. Long-term survival ranged from 37 to 75 months.

Conclusion

Although the number of cases is small, our observations confirm the diagnostic role of FDG-PET as well as its value for predicting prognosis in the clinical practice of oncology.

Keywords

chemoradiotherapyFDG-PET imaginglung cancer
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 131 - 134
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ampil, F, Caldito, G, Reiser, C et al. The prognostic utility of 18F-FDG-PET metabolic tumour response after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 2015; 54: 1066–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chan, SC, Kuo, WH, Wang, HM et al. Prognostic implications of post-therapy 18F-FDG-PET in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy. Ann Nucl Med 2013; 27: 710–719.Google Scholar
3. Onal, C, Reyhan, M, Goler, OC, Yapar, AF. Treatment outcomes of patients with cervical cancer with complete metabolic responses after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 41: 1336–1342.Google Scholar
4. Siva, S, Herschtal, A, Thomas, JM et al. Impact of post-therapy positron emission tomography on prognostic stratification and surveillance after chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer. Cancer 2011; 117: 3981–3988.Google Scholar
5. Antoniou, AJ, Marcus, C, Tahari, AK, Wahl, RL, Subramanian, RM. Follow-up or surveillance 18F-FDG PET/CT and survival outcome in lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 1062–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. MacManus, MP, Hicks, RJ, Matthews, JP et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1285–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Pandit, N, Gonen, M, Krug, L, Larson, SM. Prognostic value of [18F]FDG-PET imaging in small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2003; 30: 78–84.Google Scholar
8. Patz, EF, Connoly, J, Herndon, J. Prognostic value of thoracic FDG PET imaging after treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 769–774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Gupta, T, Master, Z, Kannan, S et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 2083–2095.Google Scholar
10. Goldstraw, P, Crowley, J, Chansky, K et al. The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol 2007; 2: 706–714.Google Scholar
11. Ball, DL, Fisher, RJ, Burmeister, BH et al. The complex relationship between lung tumour volume and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy: a prospective observational prognostic factor study of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG 99.05). Radiother Oncol 2013; 106: 305–311.Google Scholar
12. Wang, H, Liao, Z, Zhuang, Y et al. Incidental receipt of cardiac medications and survival outcomes among patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer after definitive radiotherapy. Clinical Lung Cancer 2015; 16: 128–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed