Differences between TNM classification and 2-[18F]FDG PET parameters of primary tumor in NSCLC patients
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the TNM classification with 2-[18F]FDG PET biological parameters of primary tumor in patients with NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on a group of 79 newly diagnosed NSCLC patients. PET scans were acquired on Gemini TF PET/CT scanner 60–70 min after injection of 2-[18F]FDG with the mean activity of 364 ± 75 MBq, with the area being examined from the vertex to mid-thigh. The reconstructed PET images were evaluated using MIM 7.0 Software for SUVmax, MTV and TLG values.
RESULTS: The analysis of the cancer stage according to TNM 8th edition showed stage IA2 in 8 patients, stage IA3 — 6 patients, stage IB — 4 patients, IIA — 3 patients, 15 patients with stage IIB, stage IIIA — 17 patients, IIIB — 5, IIIC — 5, IVA in 7 patients and stage IVB in 9 patients. The lowest TLG values of primary tumor were observed in stage IA2 (11.31 ± 15.27) and the highest in stage IIIC (1003.20 ± 953.59). The lowest value of primary tumor in SUVmax and MTV were found in stage IA2 (6.8 ± 3.8 and 1.37 ± 0.42, respectively), while the highest SUVmax of primary tumor was found in stage IIA (13.4 ± 11.4) and MTV in stage IIIC (108.15 ± 127.24).
CONCLUSION: TNM stages are characterized by different primary tumor 2-[18F]FDG PET parameters, which might complement patient outcome.
Keywords: lung cancerpositron emission tomography/computed tomographynon-small cell lung cancer
References
- Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394–424.
- Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U, Mańczuk M, et al. Lung cancer epidemiology: contemporary and future challenges worldwide. Ann Transl Med. 2016; 4(8): 150.
- Opoka L, Kunikowska J, Podgajny Z, et al. Staging of non-small cell lung cancer using CT and integrated PET-CT. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 2013; 81(5).
- Dela Cruz CS, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA. Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med. 2011; 32(4): 605–644.
- Krzakowski M, Jassem J, Antczak A, et al. Cancer of the lung pleura and mediastinum. Oncol Clin Pract. 2019; 15.
- Dong M, Liu J, Sun X, et al. Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Surgical Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11(1): e0146195–659.
- Im HJ, Pak K, Cheon GiJ, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters of (18)F-FDG PET in non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(2): 241–251.
- Park SY, Cho A, Yu WS, et al. Prognostic value of total lesion glycolysis by 18F-FDG PET/CT in surgically resected stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(1): 45–49.
- Wrona A, Jassem J. The new TNM classification in lung cancer [in Polish]. Onkol Prak Klin. 2009; 5: 250–260.
- Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ, Kim AW, et al. The Eighth Edition Lung Cancer Stage Classification. Chest. 2017; 151(1): 193–203.
- Cegła P, Burchardt E, Wierzchosławska E, et al. The effect of different segmentation methods on primary tumour metabolic volume assessed in F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with cervical cancer, for radiotherapy planning. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2019; 23(3): 183–186.
- Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor Treatment Response Based on Visual and Quantitative Changes in Global Tumor Glycolysis Using PET-FDG Imaging. The Visual Response Score and the Change in Total Lesion Glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999; 2(3): 159–171.
- Obara P, Liu H, Wroblewski K, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden in lung cancer. Chin J Cancer Res. 2013; 25(6): 615–622.
- Cegla P, Urbanski B, Burchardt E, et al. Influence of 18F-FDG-PET/CT on staging of cervical cancer. Nuklearmedizin. 2019; 58(1): 17–22.
- Lozano Ruiz FJ, Ileana Pérez Álvarez S, Poitevin Chacón MA, et al. The importance of image guided radiotherapy in small cell lung cancer: Case report and review of literature. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(1): 146–149.
- Chao F, Zhang H. PET/CT in the staging of the non-small-cell lung cancer. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012; 2012: 783739.
- Mirpour S, Mhlanga JC, Logeswaran P, et al. The role of PET/CT in the management of cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201(2): W192–W205.
- Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, et al. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999; 213(2): 521–525.
- Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Pu Y. Prognostic value of tumor burden measurement using the number of tumors in non-surgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Acta Radiol. 2012; 53(5): 561–568.
- Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology. 2004; 233(1): 93–100.
- Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012; 39(1): 27–38.
- Liao S, Penney BC, Zhang H, et al. Prognostic value of the quantitative metabolic volumetric measurement on 18F-FDG PET/CT in Stage IV nonsurgical small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol. 2012; 19(1): 69–77.
- Kim K, Kim SJ, Kim IJ, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured by F-18 FDG PET/CT in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2012; 33(6): 613–620.