PET及PET-CT在监测肿瘤治疗效果中的价值

陈香; 赵晋华

Volume 31 Issue 6

Dec. 2007

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Int J Radiat Med Nucl Med > 2007, 31 > 6: (354-358)

Citation:

Value of PET and PET-CT for monitoring tumor therapy

CHEN Xiang,
ZHAO Jin-hua^,

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200080, China

Corresponding author: ZHAO Jin-hua, zjhl963@gmail.com
Received Date: 2007-09-10

Abstract

¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) PET or PET-CT is an accurate test for differentiating residual viable tumor tissue from therapy-induced changes in tumor. Furthermore, quantitative assessment of therapy-induced changes in tumor ¹⁸F-FDG uptake may allow the prediction of tumor response. Treatment may be adjusted according to tumor response. So it is increasingly used to monitor tumor response in patients undergoing chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Here we focused on practical aspects of ¹⁸F-FDG PET or PET-CT for treatment monitoring and on the existing advantages and challenges.
- Fluorodeoxyglucose F18,
- Tomography,emission-computed,
- Tomography,X-ray computed,
- Neoplasm

References

[1]	Bunyaviroch T, Coleman RE. PET evaluation of lung cancer. J Nucl Med, 2006, 47(3):451-469.
[2]	Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol, 2005, 23(21):4652-4661.
[3]	Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, et al. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol, 2005, 16(9):1514-1523.
[4]	Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood, 2006, 107(1):52-59.
[5]	Cerfolio R J, Bryant AS, Winokur TS. et al. Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg, 2004, 78(6):1903-1909.
[6]	Pottgen C, Levegrun S, Theegarten D, et al. Value of ¹⁸F-fluoro-2deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res, 2006, 12(1):97-106.
[7]	Nahmias C, Hanna WT. Wahl LM, et al. Time course of early response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with ¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48(5):744-751.
[8]	Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, et al. ¹⁸F-DG-positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinih mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer,2003, 39(14):2012-2020.
[9]	Goerres GW, Stupp R, Barghouth G. et al. The value of PET, CT and in-line PET-CT in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours:long-term outcome of treatment with imatinib mesylate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2005, 32(2):153-162.
[10]	Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dualmodality PET-CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (ST1571)therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nacl Med, 2004, 45(3):357-365.
[11]	Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, et al.Relation between tumor response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer:a meta-analysis, Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet, 2000, 356(9227):373-378.
[12]	Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, et al. Objective responsed in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res, 2005, 11(16):5928-5934.
[13]	Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y. et al. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med, 2005, 35(3):186-196.
[14]	Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med, 2005, 46(6):983-995.
[15]	Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer:prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol, 2003, 21(14):2651-2657.
[16]	Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of ¹⁸F-FDG PET as an indictor of therapeutic response in patients in national cancer institute trials. J Nucl Med, 2006, 47(6):1059-1066.
[17]	Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med, 2002, 346(4):235-242.
[18]	Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Early re-staging positron emission tomography with ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol,2002, 13(9):1356-1363.
[19]	Haioun C,Itti E, Rahmouni A, et al.[¹⁸F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography(FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma:an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood, 2005, 106(4):1376-1381.
[20]	Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ojha B. Restaging patients with N2(stage Ⅲa) non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy:a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2006, 131(6):1229-1235.
[21]	Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med,2005, 353(2):123-132.
[22]	Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, et al. Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer:results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre study(Iressa Survival Evalustion in LungCancer).Lancet, 2005, 366(9496):1527-1537.
[23]	Elstrom RL, Bauer DE, Buzzai M, et al. Akt stimulates aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells. Cancer Res, 2004, 64(11):3892-3899.
[24]	Demetri GD, yon Mehren M, Blanke CD, et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med, 2002, 347(7):472-480.
[25]	Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET-CT:does it make a difference?. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48(Suppl 1):36S-44S.
[26]	Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and sublinical 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, 1999, 35(13):1773-1782.
[27]	WeberWA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med, 1999, 40(11):1771-1777.
[28]	Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2006, 33(Suppl 1):27-37.

本作品遵循Signature-Non-Commercial Use 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)协议

Proportional views

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Article Metrics

Article views(1316) PDF downloads(2) Cited by()

Proportional views

Value of PET and PET-CT for monitoring tumor therapy

Corresponding author: ZHAO Jin-hua, zjhl963@gmail.com

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200080, China

Received Date: 2007-09-10

Abstract: ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) PET or PET-CT is an accurate test for differentiating residual viable tumor tissue from therapy-induced changes in tumor. Furthermore, quantitative assessment of therapy-induced changes in tumor ¹⁸F-FDG uptake may allow the prediction of tumor response. Treatment may be adjusted according to tumor response. So it is increasingly used to monitor tumor response in patients undergoing chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Here we focused on practical aspects of ¹⁸F-FDG PET or PET-CT for treatment monitoring and on the existing advantages and challenges.

HTML

Reference (28)

[1]	Bunyaviroch T, Coleman RE. PET evaluation of lung cancer. J Nucl Med, 2006, 47(3):451-469.
[2]	Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol, 2005, 23(21):4652-4661.
[3]	Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, et al. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol, 2005, 16(9):1514-1523.
[4]	Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood, 2006, 107(1):52-59.
[5]	Cerfolio R J, Bryant AS, Winokur TS. et al. Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg, 2004, 78(6):1903-1909.
[6]	Pottgen C, Levegrun S, Theegarten D, et al. Value of ¹⁸F-fluoro-2deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res, 2006, 12(1):97-106.
[7]	Nahmias C, Hanna WT. Wahl LM, et al. Time course of early response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with ¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48(5):744-751.
[8]	Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, et al. ¹⁸F-DG-positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinih mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer,2003, 39(14):2012-2020.
[9]	Goerres GW, Stupp R, Barghouth G. et al. The value of PET, CT and in-line PET-CT in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours:long-term outcome of treatment with imatinib mesylate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2005, 32(2):153-162.
[10]	Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dualmodality PET-CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (ST1571)therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nacl Med, 2004, 45(3):357-365.
[11]	Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, et al.Relation between tumor response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer:a meta-analysis, Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet, 2000, 356(9227):373-378.
[12]	Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, et al. Objective responsed in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res, 2005, 11(16):5928-5934.
[13]	Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y. et al. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med, 2005, 35(3):186-196.
[14]	Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med, 2005, 46(6):983-995.
[15]	Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer:prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol, 2003, 21(14):2651-2657.
[16]	Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of ¹⁸F-FDG PET as an indictor of therapeutic response in patients in national cancer institute trials. J Nucl Med, 2006, 47(6):1059-1066.
[17]	Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med, 2002, 346(4):235-242.
[18]	Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Early re-staging positron emission tomography with ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol,2002, 13(9):1356-1363.
[19]	Haioun C,Itti E, Rahmouni A, et al.[¹⁸F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography(FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma:an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood, 2005, 106(4):1376-1381.
[20]	Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ojha B. Restaging patients with N2(stage Ⅲa) non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy:a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2006, 131(6):1229-1235.
[21]	Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med,2005, 353(2):123-132.
[22]	Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, et al. Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer:results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre study(Iressa Survival Evalustion in LungCancer).Lancet, 2005, 366(9496):1527-1537.
[23]	Elstrom RL, Bauer DE, Buzzai M, et al. Akt stimulates aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells. Cancer Res, 2004, 64(11):3892-3899.
[24]	Demetri GD, yon Mehren M, Blanke CD, et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med, 2002, 347(7):472-480.
[25]	Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET-CT:does it make a difference?. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48(Suppl 1):36S-44S.
[26]	Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and sublinical 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, 1999, 35(13):1773-1782.
[27]	WeberWA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med, 1999, 40(11):1771-1777.
[28]	Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2006, 33(Suppl 1):27-37.

Value of PET and PET-CT for monitoring tumor therapy

Abstract

References

Proportional views

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Article Metrics

Related

Proportional views

Value of PET and PET-CT for monitoring tumor therapy

Corresponding author: ZHAO Jin-hua, zjhl963@gmail.com

HTML

Catalog