Impact of third-line treatment with irinotecan plus cetuximab on non-tumor standardized uptake values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Andersen,Kim   Francis; Skougaard,Kristin; Lerberg Nielsen,Anne; Westergren Hendel,Helle

doi:10.3892/ol.2012.683

Impact of third-line treatment with irinotecan plus cetuximab on non-tumor standardized uptake values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Authors:
- Kim Francis Andersen
- Kristin Skougaard
- Anne Lerberg Nielsen
- Helle Westergren Hendel
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Herlev Hospital, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark
Published online on: April 18, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2012.683
Pages: 131-134

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The correct interpretation of metabolic response in cancer cells to therapy requires knowledge of how tumor‑free tissue responds to the same treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate standardized uptake values (SUVs) in tumor‑free regions of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer prior to and following therapy, via the use of 18-fluoride fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). On baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT scans (n=51), volumes of interest (VOI) were obtained from tumor-free tissue (aortic arch, liver and spleen) and SUVs normalized to total body mass were registered. The procedure was repeated for a follow-up scan two weeks following a single administration of the third-line treatment with irinotecan plus cetuximab. The mean differences in SUV prior to and following therapy were non-significant (P>0.05) in all the registered tumor-free regions. Correlation coefficients indicated a significant result between the variables (0.74-0.84; P<0.001). This study suggests that the early assessment of metabolic response may be made following the administration of third-line therapy with irinotecan plus cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to second-line treatment with irinotecan.

View Figures

View References

1	Ferlay J, Parkin DM and Steliarova-Foucher E: Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 46:765–81. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 45:228–247. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
3	Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van GM, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC and Gwyther SG: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 92:205–216. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
4	Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F and Grigsby PW: The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer. 110:1738–1744. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Larson SM and Schwartz LH: 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for ‘qualified biomarker’: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med. 47:901–903. 2006.
6	Weber WA: Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol. 24:3282–3292. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Boellaard R: Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 50(Suppl 1): S11–S20. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Cheebsumon P, Velasquez LM, Hoekstra CJ, Hayes W, Kloet RW, Hoetjes NJ, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA and Boellaard R: Measuring response to therapy using FDG PET: semi-quantitative and full kinetic analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. January 6–2011.(Epub ahead of print).
9	Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, Larson S, Mankoff DA, Siegel BA, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J and Sullivan D: Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 47:1059–1066. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
10	Weber WA: Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 46:983–995. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
11	Freedman NM, Sundaram SK, Kurdziel K, Carrasquillo JA, Whatley M, Carson JM, Sellers D, Libutti SK, Yang JC and Bacharach SL: Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 30:46–53. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Huang SC: Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol. 27:643–646. 2000.PubMed/NCBI
13	Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, Oyen WJ, Kotzerke J, Hoekstra OS, Pruim J, et al: FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 37:181–200. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, Pruim J and Price P: Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 35:1773–1782. 1999.
15	Teräs M, Tolvanen T, Johansson JJ, Williams JJ and Knuuti J: Performance of the new generation of whole-body PET/CT scanners: Discovery STE and Discovery VCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 34:1683–1692. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
16	Benz MR, Evilevitch V, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J and Weber WA: Treatment monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors. J Nucl Med. 49:1038–1046. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
17	Marom EM, Munden RF, Truong MT, Gladish GW, Podoloff DA, Mawlawi O, Broemeling LD, Bruzzi JF and Macapinlac HA: Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Imaging. 21:205–212. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Altman DG: Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample? Br Med J. 281:1336–1338. 1980. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	D’Agostino RB and Pearson ES: Tests for departure from normality. Empirical results for the distributions of b² and √b¹. Biometrika. 60:613–622. 1973.
20	D’Agostino RB and Stephens MA: Goodness-of-Fit Techniques. Marcel Dekker; New York: 1986