[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and prediction of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction. BJS 2018; 105: 419-428.
Published: 8th February 2018
Authors: T. Harustiak, M. Zemanova, P. Fencl, L. Hornofova, A. Pazdro, M. Snajdauf et al.
The aim of this prospective study was to assess whether [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET can be used to predict histopathological response early in the course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction.
Following the PET response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST 1.0) as a standardized method for semiquantitative assessment of metabolic response, FDG‐PET/CT was performed before (PET1) and after (PET2) initiation of the first cycle of chemotherapy. The relative changes in the peak standardized uptake value (ΔSUL) and total lesion glycolysis (ΔTLG) between PET1 and PET2 were correlated with histopathological response, defined as less than 50 per cent viable tumour cells in the resection specimen. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the optimal cut‐off value with the highest accuracy of histopathological response prediction.
PET2 was performed a median of 16 (range 12–22) days after the start of chemotherapy. Some 27 of 90 patients who underwent surgery had a histopathological response. There was no association between the median ΔSUL or median ΔTLG and the histopathological response. A
FDG‐PET/CT after the first cycle of chemotherapy does not predict histopathological response in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: J. A. Elliott, N. G. Docherty, C. F. Murphy, H.‐G. Eckhardt, S. L. Doyle, E. M. Guinan et al.
Diagnostic performance of MRI for assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer.
Authors: S. E. Vollenbrock, F. E. M. Voncken, J. M. van Dieren, D. M. J. Lambregts, M. Maas, G. J. Meijer et al.
Authors: T. Mizuno, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, J. Yamaguchi, S. Onoe et al.
Meta‐analysis of clinical outcome after treatment for achalasia based on manometric subtypes. BJS 2019; 106: 332-341.
Authors: C. Andolfi, P. M. Fisichella
Systematic review of management of incidental gallbladder cancer after cholecystectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 32-45.
Authors: K. Søreide, R. V. Guest, E. M. Harrison, T. J. Kendall, O. J. Garden, S. J. Wigmore et al.
Relationship between R1 resection, tumour rupture and recurrence in resected gastrointestinal stromal tumour. BJS 2019; 106: 419-426.
Authors: T. Hølmebakk, B. Bjerkehagen, I. Hompland, S. Stoldt, K. Boye
Notes: Tumour rupture is most important
Survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. BJS 2019; 106: 255-262.
Authors: B.‐Y. Wang, S.‐C. Wu, H.‐C. Chen, W.‐H. Hung, C.‐H. Lin, C.‐L. Huang et al.
Notes: Surgery after chemoradiation indicated
Effect of preoperative biliary drainage on cholestasis‐associated inflammatory and fibrotic gene signatures in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2019; 106: 55-58.
Authors: M. J. Reiniers, L. de Haan, R. Weijer, J. K. Wiggers, A. Jongejan, P. D. Moerland et al.
Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 111-119.
Authors: L. Goense, J. Meziani, J. P. Ruurda, R. van Hillegersberg
Meta‐analysis of the influence of lifestyle changes for preoperative weight loss on surgical outcomes. BJS 2019; 106: 181-189.
Authors: M. Roman, A. Monaghan, G. F. Serraino, D. Miller, S. Pathak, F. Lai et al.
Notes: Possible but how much is enough?
Multicentre cohort study of antihypertensive and lipid‐lowering therapy cessation after bariatric surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 286-295.
Authors: J. Thereaux, T. Lesuffleur, S. Czernichow, A. Basdevant, S. Msika, D. Nocca et al.
Notes: Better than controls
Overall survival before and after centralization of gastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands. BJS 2018; 105: 1807-1815.
Authors: M. van Putten, S. D. Nelen, V. E. P. P. Lemmens, J. H. M. B. Stoot, H. H. Hartgrink, S. S. Gisbertz et al.
Notes: Practice makes perfect?