» Articles » PMID: 24941936

CT Versus FDG-PET/CT Response Evaluation in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Irinotecan and Cetuximab

Overview
Journal Cancer Med
Specialty Oncology
Date 2014 Jun 20
PMID 24941936
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We compared morphologic computed tomography (CT)-based to metabolic fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-based response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and correlated the findings with survival and KRAS status. From 2006 to 2009, patients were included in a phase II trial and treated with cetuximab and irinotecan every second week. They underwent FDG-PET/CT examination at baseline and after every fourth treatment cycle. Response evaluation was performed prospectively according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.0) and retrospectively according to Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). Best overall responses were registered. Sixty-one patients were eligible for response evaluation. Partial response (PR) rate was 18%, stable disease (SD) rate 64%, and progressive disease (PD) rate 18%. Partial metabolic response (PMR) rate was 56%, stable metabolic disease rate 33%, and progressive metabolic disease (PMD) rate 11%. Response agreement was poor, κ-coefficient 0.19. Hazard ratio for overall survival for responders (PR/PMR) versus nonresponders (PD/PMD) was higher for CT- than for FDG-PET/CT evaluation. Within patients with KRAS mutations, none had PR but 44% had PMR. In conclusion, morphologic and metabolic response agreement was poor primarily because a large part of the patients shifted from SD with CT evaluation to PMR when evaluated with FDG-PET/CT. Furthermore, a larger fraction of the patients with KRAS mutations had a metabolic treatment response.

Citing Articles

PET/CT in assessment of colorectal liver metastases: a comprehensive review with emphasis on F-FDG.

Zirakchian Zadeh M Clin Exp Metastasis. 2023; 40(6):465-491.

PMID: 37682423 DOI: 10.1007/s10585-023-10231-9.


Tailoring the clinical management of colorectal cancer by F-FDG PET/CT.

Shi Y, Wang M, Zhang J, Xiang Z, Li C, Zhang J Front Oncol. 2023; 12:1062704.

PMID: 36620584 PMC: 9814158. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1062704.


The Value of F-FDG-PET-CT Imaging in Treatment Evaluation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review.

Bijlstra O, Boreel M, van Mossel S, Burgmans M, Kapiteijn E, Oprea-Lager D Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(3).

PMID: 35328267 PMC: 8947194. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12030715.


Long-term outcomes and recurrence pattern of 18F-FDG PET-CT complete metabolic response in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a lesion-based and patient-based analysis.

Chiu K, Lam K, An H, Cheung G, Lau J, Choy T BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1):776.

PMID: 30064385 PMC: 6069713. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4687-9.


Comparison of the morphologic criteria (RECIST) and metabolic criteria (EORTC and PERCIST) in tumor response assessments: a pooled analysis.

Kim H, Kim B, Kim H, Kim J Korean J Intern Med. 2018; 34(3):608-617.

PMID: 29334722 PMC: 6506740. DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2017.063.


References
1.
Karapetis C, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker D, OCallaghan C, Tu D, Tebbutt N . K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(17):1757-65. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804385. View

2.
Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad M, Boden K, Eriksson-Alm Y . Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics. 2008; 28(2):329-44. DOI: 10.1148/rg.282075068. View

3.
de Geus-Oei L, Vriens D, van Laarhoven H, van der Graaf W, Oyen W . Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50 Suppl 1:43S-54S. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057224. View

4.
Figueiras R, Padhani A, Goh V, Vilanova J, Gonzalez S, Villalba Martin C . Novel oncologic drugs: what they do and how they affect images. Radiographics. 2011; 31(7):2059-91. DOI: 10.1148/rg.317115108. View

5.
Wahl R, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge M . From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50 Suppl 1:122S-50S. PMC: 2755245. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307. View