Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. May 15, 2014; 6(5): 139-144
Published online May 15, 2014. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.139
Published online May 15, 2014. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.139
Table 1 Influence of patient characteristics on maximum standardized uptake value and survival
| Factor | Mean SUVmax (95%CI) | Median survival in days (95%CI) |
| Sex | ||
| Male (n = 191) | 11.4 (10.5, 12.3) | 566 (491, 641) |
| Female (n = 80) | 12.1 (10.2, 14.0) | 884 (403, 1364) |
| P = 0.950 | P = 0.05 | |
| Age in years | ||
| Age ≤ 65 (n = 136) | 11.5 (10.5, 12.5) | 575 (456, 694) |
| Age > 65 (n = 135) | 11.7 (10.4, 13.1) | 586 (418, 754) |
| P = 0.770 | P = 0.25 | |
| Histology | ||
| Adenocarcinoma (n = 197) | 11.3 (10.2, 12.4) | 570 (483, 657) |
| Squamous carcinoma (n = 74) | 12.4 (11.3, 13.6) | 629 (445, 813) |
| P = 0.008 | P = 0.75 | |
| Tumor location | ||
| Upper esophagus (n = 13) | 15.6 (11.4, 19.8) | 973 (142,1804) |
| Mid esophagus (n = 50) | 12.8 (11.0, 14.6) | 425 (252, 598) |
| Lower esophagus (n = 136) | 10.8 (9.6, 12.0) | 586 (464, 708) |
| Junctional (n = 72) | 11.6 (10.0, 13.1) | 684 (430, 938) |
| P = 0.010 | P = 0.14 |
Table 2 Influence of cancer stage on maximum standardized uptake value and survival
| Factor | Mean SUVmax (95%CI) | Median survival in days (95%CI) |
| T stage | ||
| T0 or T1 (n = 15) | 3.1 (1.5, 4.7) | Not reached |
| T2 (n = 49) | 8.7 (7.0, 10.4) | 1225 (742, 1708) |
| T3 (n = 183) | 12.7 (11.7, 13.7) | 495 (413, 577) |
| T4 (n = 24) | 14.1 (11.6, 16.7) | 390 (186, 594) |
| P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 | |
| N stage | ||
| N0 (n = 107) | 9.1 (8.1, 10.2) | 1094 (835, 1352) |
| N1 (n = 89) | 12.9 (11.4, 14.5) | 466 (371, 561) |
| N2 (n = 61) | 13.4 (11.6, 15.1) | 477 (307, 646) |
| N3 (n = 14) | 14.4 (8.8, 19.9) | 530 (350, 710) |
| P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 | |
| UICC stage | ||
| Stage 0 or 1 (n = 45) | 5.6 (4.2, 7.0) | 2092 (1060, 3124) |
| Stage 2 (n = 50) | 12.1 (10.6, 13.6) | 780 (195,1365) |
| Stage 3 (n = 99) | 11.9 (10.7, 13.2) | 594 (473, 715) |
| Stage 4 (n = 77) | 14.4 (12.6, 16.1) | 349 (280, 418) |
| P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 |
Table 3 Influence of treatment intent and modality on maximum standardized uptake value and survival
| Factor | Mean SUVmax (95%CI) | Median survival in days (95%CI) |
| Treatment intention | ||
| Curative (n = 182) | 10.6 (9.7, 11.5) | 984 (699, 1269) |
| Palliative (n = 89) | 13.6 (11.9, 15.2) | 370 (332, 408) |
| P = 0.001 | P < 0.001 | |
| Treatment type | ||
| Endoscopic resection (n = 5) | 1.3 (-1.0, 3.6) | Not reached |
| Surgical resection (n = 95) | 10.7 (9.5, 11.9) | 1285 (962, 1608) |
| Chemoradiotherapy (n = 63) | 11.6 (10.0, 13.1) | 700 (411, 988) |
| Palliative (n = 89) | 13.8 (12.1, 15.5) | 370 (349, 390) |
| Exploratory surgery (n = 19) | 8.8 (6.6, 11.0) | 340 (280, 400) |
| P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 |
Table 4 Summary of literature reporting on prognostic value of maximum standardized uptake value in patients with esophageal carcinoma
| Ref. | Patients (n) | Adeno-carcinoma (%) | Treatment intention of studied group | Median (or mean) SUVmax | SUVmax significant on univariate analysis | SUVmax significant on multivariate analysis | Other significant associations on multivariate analysis |
| Fukunaga et al[4], 1998 | 48 | Not stated | Curative | 7 | Yes | Not assessed | Not assessed |
| Choi et al[5], 2004 | 69 | 0% | Curative | 6.3/13.7 (thresholds) | Yes | No | UICC stage |
| Hong et al[6], 2005 | 47 | 87% | Curative | Not stated | No | No | Number of abnormalities on PET-CT |
| Stahl et al[7], 2005 | 40 | 100% | Curative | 10.5 | No | Not assessed | |
| van Westreenen et al[8], 2005 | 40 | 70% | Curative and palliative | 6.7 | Yes | No | Treatment |
| Cerfolio et al[9], 2006 | 89 | 53% | Curative | 6.6 | Yes | Yes | UICC stage |
| Choi et al[10], 2006 | 51 | 0% | Curative | Not stated | Yes | No | UICC stage, N1 status (on PET-CT), immunohistochemical markers |
| Westerterp et al[11], 2008 | 26 | 100% | Curative | 0.26 | Yes | Not assessed | |
| Omloo et al[12], 2008 | 125 | 85% | Curative | 0.27 | Yes | No | UICC stage |
| Cheze-Le Rest et al[13], 2008 | 47 | 77% | Curative | 9 | Yes | Yes | Treatment, number of abnormalities on PET-CT |
| Chatterton et al[14], 2008 | 129 | 19% | Curative and palliative | 8.2 | No | Not assessed | Not assessed |
| Makino et al[15], 2008 | 38 | 100% | Curative | 11.1 | Yes | No | N1 status (on PET-CT) |
| Javeri et al[16], 2009 | 161 | 100% | Curative | 10.1 | No | No | |
| Kato et al[17], 2009 | 184 | 0% | Curative | 4.5 | Yes | Yes | N1 status |
| Rizk et al[18], 2009 | 189 | 100% | Curative | 4.5 (preset threshold) | Yes | Not assessed | Not assessed |
| Sepesi et al[19], 2009 | 72 | 83% | Curative | 6.2 | Yes | Yes | |
| Shenfine et al[20], 2009 | 45 | 100% | Curative | 5.7 | Yes | No | UICC stage |
| Hyun et al[21], 2010 | 151 | 3% | Curative and palliative | 17.2 | Yes | No | UICC stage, metabolic tumor volume |
| Brown et al[22], 2012 | 103 | 80% | Curative | 6.4 (early)/8.8 (later scans) | Yes | No | N1 status, age |
| Gillies et al[23], 2012 | 121 | 100% | Curative | 8.5 | Yes | No | N1 status (on PET-CT) |
| Chan et al[24], 2013 | 185 | 75% | Curative and palliative | 8.9 | Yes | No | N1 status, tumor volume on EUS |
- Citation: Al-Taan OS, Eltweri A, Sharpe D, Rodgers PM, Ubhi SS, Bowrey DJ. Prognostic value of baseline FDG uptake on PET-CT in esophageal carcinoma. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2014; 6(5): 139-144
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v6/i5/139.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.139