METHODS
Between January 2005 and December 2016, a total of 106 patients with clinical T3-4 and/or N+ rectal
cancer without distant metastasis were included in this study. Correlation between metabolic and
volumetric parameters and tumor characteristics was evaluated. Prognostic factors for overall survival
(OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were
analyzed.
RESULTS
The median follow-up duration for all patients was 39.0 months (range, 6?103 months). Pathologic
complete response (pCR) was defined as the absence of viable cancer cells in the resected specimen
(ypT0N0). pCR was achieved in 17% of all cases (18/106). There was a weak correlation between SUVmax
of primary tumor and MTV ([r]=0.238; p<0.001). However, SUVmax of primary tumor and TLG
were significantly correlated (r=0.538; p<0.001). Neither SUVmax nor SUVmean was affected by patient
and tumor characteristics. Posttreatment extensive stage of disease (p=0.013), absence of concomitant
CT (p=0.012), MTV ≥14.65 cm3 (p=0.008), and TLG ?117.00 (p=0.023) were unfavorable prognostic
factors for OS on multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION
Although FDG-PET is not a standard imaging modality for the treatment of rectal cancers, a negative
effect of high MTV and TLG on OS was shown in our study. We should consider more intense treatment
approaches for tumors with high MTV and TLG values.
Keywords: FDG-PET/CT; locally advanced rectal cancer; prognostic factors; radiochemotherapy
Several imaging modalities are currently used for
staging the disease and monitoring the response to
nRCT in patients with LARC. Concomitant use of
conventional computed tomography (CT), magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to be effective
for local staging of rectal cancer by accurately determining
the T4 stage with circumferential resection
margin involvement.[
Is the present study aims to determine the prognostic
and predictive role of 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters,
such as SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV and TLG, for
the patients with LARC treated with nRCT.
Patients were pathologically staged according to the
2017 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC),
8th edition.[
Follow-up
18F-FDG PET/CT Technique
Image Analysis
Statistical Analysis
The patients were followed every three months for two
years, then every six months up to five years and annually
thereafter. Failure was defined as biopsy-proven
recurrence or documented progression of disease in
serial-imaging studies. Failure patterns were determined
by follow-up imaging studies and were divided into two groups: local and distant failure (including
para-aortic and supraclavicular lymph nodes and also
a distant organ).
The patients were imaged using a dedicated 18F-FDG
PET/CT system, as previously described.[
The tumor size is the maximum diameter measured
on 18F-FDG PET/CT images. For each 18F-FDG
PET/CT study, the SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV and
TLG values of the primary tumor were measured.
The SUV value higher than 2.5 was considered positive.
A volumetric region of interest (ROI) around the
outline of the primary tumor was placed on the axial
18F-FDG PET/CT images using the semi-automatic
software. The ROI borders were manually adjusted by
visual inspection of the primary tumor for avoiding
an overlap on adjacent FDG-avid structures, and the
18F-FDG uptake of the urinary tract and bladder are
excluded. MTV was defined as the regions equal to or higher than 42% of the SUVmax (Fig.
All statistical analyses relied on standard software
(SPSS v22; SPSS Inc. [IBM], Chicago, IL, USA). The
time to event was calculated as the time interval from
the date of diagnosis to the date of first finding on clinical
or imaging examination that suggested disease
recurrence. All time-related events (failure or death)
were calculated from the first day of biopsy-proven
diagnosis to the last follow-up or death. Disease-free
survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were
calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Correlations
between parameters were calculated using the
Pearson test. Variables shown to be significant or of
borderline significance (p<0.1) were also selected for
multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed
using the Cox proportional hazards model,
using covariates with a p-value less than 0.20 based on
univariate analysis. The same results were observed
after forward and backward inclusion in multivariate
analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curves
(ROC) were generated for the SUVmax, SUVmean,
MTV and TLG values to determine the cut-off values
for predicting recurrence and survival that yielded
optimal sensitivity and specificity. Clinicopathological
factors and follow-up data from our patient cohort
were analyzed for correlations with SUVmax,
SUVmean, MTV and TLG. All p-values≤0.05 were
considered statistically significant.
Treatment Outcomes
The median follow-up for all patients and surviving
patients was 39.0 months (range, 6?103 months) and
40 months (range, 22-103 months), respectively. Of
the 106 patients in our study cohort, 21 (20%) patients
developed local, locoregional, distant failure, or a combination
of local/locoregional and distant failures. Of
these, 16 (15%) developed distant metastases, and five
(5%) patients had local/locoregional failure.
At the time of the last follow-up, 94 patients (89%) were alive (11 [10%] patients with disease), and 12 patients (11%) were dead.
Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as the absence of viable cancer cells in the resected specimen (ypT0N0). pCR was achieved in 17% of all cases (18/106). According to TRG system, grade 0-1 and grade 2-3 responders were 45 patients (42.5%) and 61 patients (57.5%), respectively.
18-F FDG PET/CT Findings
The mean±SD SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV and TLG
values were 16.9±9.6 (range, 3.6-60.2), 9.6±6.3 (range,
2.4-49.2), 24.7±26.4 cm3 (range, 2.8-160.5 cm3) and
268.7±474.5 (range, 21.8-3.092.0) for the entire group,
respectively. There was a weak correlation between
the SUVmax of the primary rectal tumor and MTV
(Pearson correlation coefficient [r]=0.238; p<0.001),
whereas the correlation between SUVmax of the primary
rectal tumor and TLG were moderate (r=0.538;
p<0.001). A weak correlation between tumor size and
SUVmax (r=0.248; p<0.001), and a moderate correlation
between tumor size and MTV (r=0.489; p<0.001),
and TLG (r=0.512; p<0.001) were observed.
The cut-off values for SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, and TLG determined from the ROC curves were 13.5 g/ml [area under the curve (AUC)=0.357, 95% confidence interval(CI)=0.185-0.529], 8.44 g/ ml (AUC=0.366, 95% CI=0.186- 0.545), 14.65 cm3 (AUC=0.549, 95% CI=0.348-0.750), and 117.00 (AUC=0.445, 95% CI=0.255-0.636), respectively. Patients were divided into groups based on their values for each factor being below (low group) and at or above (high group) the cut-off value. The low and high SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, and TLG groups included 44 (41%) and 62 (59%) patients, 50 (47%) and 56 (53%) patients, 51 (48%) and 55 (52%) patients, and 48 (45%) and 58 (55%) patients, respectively.
We could not find any significant correlation between FDG-PET/CT parameters and treatment response to nCRT according to TRG system.
Correlations between FDG-PET/CT Parameters and
Patient/Tumor Characteristics
Neither SUVmax nor SUVmean was affected by patient
and tumor characteristics. On the other hand,
MTV and TLG were significantly higher in patients
with larger tumors (>3 cm) (p=0.031, and p=0.002 respectively),
advanced cT stage (p=0.004, and p=0.043
respectively), and other than distal locations (p=0.049,
and p=0.037 respectively) (Table
Survival Analysis and Prognostic Factors
The 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 92%
and 80%, respectively (Fig.
The 3- and 5-year local recurrence-free survival
(LRFS) rates were 95% and 92%, respectively (Fig.
). On univariate analysis, the complete nodal response was the only prognostic factor for LRFS.
The 3- and 5-year distant metastasis-free survival
(DMFS) rates were 87% and 38%, respectively (Fig.
On multivariate analysis, we could not find any statistically
significant prognostic factor both for LRFS
and DMFS. On the other hand, posttreatment extensive
stage of disease (p=0.013), absence of concomitant
CT (p=0.012), MTV ≥14.65 cm3 (p=0.008), and TLG
≥117.00 (p=0.023) were unfavorable prognostic factors
for OS (Table
Several studies investigated the predictive role
of FDG-PET/CT for metabolic tumor response in
LARC after nCRT.[
The prognostic role of FDG-PET/CT parameters is
the other highly evaluated issue for many cancer types.
Huang et al.[
Bang et al.[
Most recently, Okuno et al.[
There are some limitations concerning the usage
of FDG-PET/CT as a prediction and/or prognostic
tool for patients with LARC. We should interpret the
FDG-PET/CT parameters with caution because different
cut-off value determination methods were used in
the literature and different SUV threshold values for
defining MTV and TLG were preferred for those limited
number of studies. The optimal cut-off values for
SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV and TLG have not yet been
established. In our study, we used ROC curve analysis
to determine the thresholds as previous studies have
been conducted. However, they could not give any
exact cut-off value for FDG-PET/CT derived parameters.
Despite all uncertainties, it can be concluded that
higher MTV and TLG may be a sign of more aggressive
behavior for LARC and we should consider more intensive
treatment approaches and follow-up schedules
for these groups of patients.
Our study has some limitations. The retrospective
nature of the study and lack of PET/CT fter nCRT are
the main limitations. In addition, we measured the tumor
size in PET-CT images. Measuring the tumor size
in T2-weighted MRI images should be more reliable.
However, our findings, which were based on a larger
and more homogenous patient population treated with
nCRT in modern RT era, and our study cohort, which
was considerably larger than those of previous reports,
would be more helpful for evaluating the significance
of FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters for survival
and assessing the correlations of these parameters with
other risk factors.
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
Conflict of Interest: All authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics Committee Approval: This study approval is obtained from local ethical committee.
Financial Support: There is no financial support.
Authorship contributions: Concept - F.S., R.S., A.O.; Design - F.S., A.O., R.S.; Supervision - F.S., D.Y., S.O.; Funding - None; Materials - None; Data collection and/or processing - F.S., A.O., R.S.; Data analysis and/or interpretation - F.S., A.O., R.S.; Literature search - F.S., D.Y., S.O.; Writing - F.S., D.Y.; Critical review - F.S., S.O.