Yonsei Med J.  2013 Nov;54(6):1377-1383. 10.3349/ymj.2013.54.6.1377.

Prognostic Value of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

• Choi HJ
• Kang CM
• Lee WJ
• Song SY
• Cho A
• Yun M
• Lee JD
• Kim JH
• Lee JH

• KMID: 1798133
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2013.54.6.1377

Abstract

PURPOSE
We evaluated the prognostic value of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of pancreatic cancer patients who underwent curative resection, which included 64 consecutive patients who had preoperative FDG PET scans. For statistical analysis, the maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of primary pancreatic cancer was measured. Survival time was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox's proportional hazard model was used to determine whether SUVmax added new predictive information concerning survival together with known prognostic factors. p<0.05 indicated statistical significance.
RESULTS
Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were respectively 42.9 months (27.6-58.2; 95% CI) and 14.9 months (10.1-19.7; 95% CI). When subjects were divided into two groups according to SUVmax with a cutoff value of 3.5, the high SUVmax group (n=32; SUVmax >3.5) showed significantly shorter OS and DFS than the low SUVmax group. Multivariate analysis of OS and DFS showed that both high SUVmax and poor tumor differentiation were independent poor prognostic factors.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed that degree of FDG uptake was an independent prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer patients who underwent curative resection.

Keyword

FDG PET; pancreatic cancer; prognosis; curative resection

MeSH Terms

Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18/*diagnostic use
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreatic Neoplasms/*diagnosis/mortality
Positron-Emission Tomography/*methods
Retrospective Studies
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in low SUVmax and high SUVmax groups. Tick marks on curves indicate drop-outs. (A) Cumulative survival rate was higher in the low SUVmax group (≤3.5; continuous line) than the high SUVmax group (>3.5; dotted line) (p=0.011). (B) Cumulative disease-free rate was also higher in the low SUVmax group (p=0.002). SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value.

Reference

1. Li D, Xie K, Wolff R, Abbruzzese JL. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2004; 363:1049–1057.

2. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sitzmann JV, Hruban RH, Goodman SN, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer of the head of the pancreas. 201 patients. Ann Surg. 1995; 221:721–731.

3. Bang S, Chung HW, Park SW, Chung JB, Yun M, Lee JD, et al. The clinical usefulness of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the differential diagnosis, staging, and response evaluation after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006; 40:923–929.

4. Humphris JL, Chang DK, Johns AL, Scarlett CJ, Pajic M, Jones MD, et al. The prognostic and predictive value of serum CA19.9 in pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012; 23:1713–1722.

5. Lee KJ, Yi SW, Chung MJ, Park SW, Song SY, Chung JB, et al. Serum CA 19-9 and CEA levels as a prognostic factor in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Yonsei Med J. 2013; 54:643–649.

6. Lim JE, Chien MW, Earle CC. Prognostic factors following curative resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a population-based, linked database analysis of 396 patients. Ann Surg. 2003; 237:74–85.

7. Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Koniaris L, Kaushal S, Abrams RA, et al. Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg. 2000; 4:567–579.

8. Ueda M, Endo I, Nakashima M, Minami Y, Takeda K, Matsuo K, et al. Prognostic factors after resection of pancreatic cancer. World J Surg. 2009; 33:104–110.

9. Kauhanen SP, Komar G, Seppänen MP, Dean KI, Minn HR, Kajander SA, et al. A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, multidetector row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2009; 250:957–963.

10. Zimny M, Fass J, Bares R, Cremerius U, Sabri O, Buechin P, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000; 35:883–888.

11. Nakata B, Nishimura S, Ishikawa T, Ohira M, Nishino H, Kawabe J, et al. Prognostic predictive value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for patients with pancreatic cancer. Int J Oncol. 2001; 19:53–58.

12. Sperti C, Pasquali C, Chierichetti F, Ferronato A, Decet G, Pedrazzoli S. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in predicting survival of patients with pancreatic carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003; 7:953–959.

13. Lyshchik A, Higashi T, Nakamoto Y, Fujimoto K, Doi R, Imamura M, et al. Dual-phase 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography as a prognostic parameter in patients with pancreatic cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005; 32:389–397.

14. Maemura K, Takao S, Shinchi H, Noma H, Mataki Y, Kurahara H, et al. Role of positron emission tomography in decisions on treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006; 13:435–441.

15. Lee SM, Kim TS, Lee JW, Kim SK, Park SJ, Han SS. Improved prognostic value of standardized uptake value corrected for blood glucose level in pancreatic cancer using F-18 FDG PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2011; 36:331–336.

16. Choi M, Heilbrun LK, Venkatramanamoorthy R, Lawhorn-Crews JM, Zalupski MM, Shields AF. Using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to monitor clinical outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010; 33:257–261.

17. Kuwatani M, Kawakami H, Eto K, Haba S, Shiga T, Tamaki N, et al. Modalities for evaluating chemotherapeutic efficacy and survival time in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: comparison between FDG-PET, CT, and serum tumor markers. Intern Med. 2009; 48:867–875.

18. Higashi T, Saga T, Nakamoto Y, Ishimori T, Fujimoto K, Doi R, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) --usefulness and limitations in "clinical reality". Ann Nucl Med. 2003; 17:261–279.

19. Reske SN, Bares R, Büll U, Guhlmann A, Moser E, Wannenmacher MF. [Clinical value of positron emission tomography (PET)in oncologic questions: results of an interdisciplinary consensus conference. Schirmerreschaft der Deutschen Gesellschaft for Nuklearmedizin]. Nuklearmedizin. 1996; 35:42–52.

20. Lyshchik A, Higashi T, Hara T, Nakamoto Y, Fujimoto K, Doi R, et al. Expression of glucose transporter-1, hexokinase-II, proliferating cell nuclear antigen and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. Cancer Invest. 2007; 25:154–162.

21. Wakabayashi H, Nishiyama Y, Otani T, Sano T, Yachida S, Okano K, et al. Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in surgery for pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2008; 14:64–69.

22. Jamieson NB, Carter CR, McKay CJ, Oien KA. Tissue biomarkers for prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17:3316–3331.

23. Bley TA, Uhl M, Simon P, Mayerle J, Ghanem NA, Geml B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for preoperative staging of pancreatic carcinoma: tendency for understaging. In Vivo. 2005; 19:983–987.

24. Soriano A, Castells A, Ayuso C, Ayuso JR, de Caralt MT, Ginès MA, et al. Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonography, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99:492–501.

25. Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004; 24:523–543.

26. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology. 2002; 225:575–581.

27. Mottaghy FM, Sunderkötter C, Schubert R, Wohlfart P, Blumstein NM, Neumaier B, et al. Direct comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34:1355–1364.

28. Halpern BS, Yeom K, Fueger BJ, Lufkin RB, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M. Evaluation of suspected local recurrence in head and neck cancer: a comparison between PET and PET/CT for biopsy proven lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 62:199–204.

29. Freudenberg LS, Rosenbaum SJ, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Antoch G. PET versus PET/CT dual-modality imaging in evaluation of lung cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007; 45:639–644.

30. Kim JH, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS, Halpern BS, Fueger BJ, Hecht JR, et al. Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005; 46:587–595.

31. Tang S, Huang G, Liu J, Liu T, Treven L, Song S, et al. Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 78:142–150.

32. Buchs NC, Bühler L, Bucher P, Willi JP, Frossard JL, Roth AD, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in detection and presurgical assessment of pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 26:657–662.