Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Radiol. Jul 28, 2014; 6(7): 392-398
Published online Jul 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i7.392
Published online Jul 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i7.392
Table 1 Patient characteristics n(%)
Ref. | Year of publication | n | Age,yr | M/F | Study type | Study protocol FDG response | Stage ofdisease | Histology | EGFR Selection |
Riely et al[20] | 2007 | 13 | 56 | 2/11 | Prospective | 21 d after stopping and 21 d after restarting | IV | Adenocarcinoma 11 (85) Other (including NOS) 2 (15) | Only EGFR mutated tumors |
Aukema et al[21] | 2010 | 23 | 63 | 8/15 | Prospective | After 7 d | I-III | Adenocarcinoma 17 (73) Other 6 (26) | No selection |
Mileshkin et al[11] | 2011 | 51 | 61 | 30/21 | Prospective | After 14 d and 56 d | III - IV | Adenocarcinoma 37 (72) Squamous cell carcinoma 8 (16) Large-cell carcinoma 1 (2) Other (including NOS) 5 (10) | No selection |
Zander et al[22] | 2011 | 34 | 61 | 17/17 | Prospective | After 7 d and 42 d | IV | Adenocarcinoma 26 (76) Squamous cell carcinoma 4 (12) Large cell carcinoma 1 (3) Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma 3 (9) | No selection |
Benz et al[23] | 2011 | 22 | 64 | 6/16 | Prospective | After 14 d and 78 d | III - IV | Adenocarcinoma 17 (78) Squamous cell carcinoma 3 (14) Other (including NOS) 1 (4) Large cell carcinoma 1 (4) | No selection |
O'Brien et al[24] | 2012 | 47 | 63 | 18/29 | Prospective | After 42 d | III - IV | Adenocarcinoma 28 (60) Squamous cell carcinoma 6 (13) Bronchioalveolar carcinoma 7 (14) Other (including NOS) 6 (13) | No selection |
Takahashi et al[25] | 2012 | 20 | 69 | 5/15 | Prospective | After 2 d and 28 d | III - IV | Adenocarcinoma 20 (100) | No selection |
Table 2 Early [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography acquired together with low dose computed tomography reponse results \< 21 d
Ref. | Year ofpublication | n | SUV | Responsecriteria | FDG response time | Cut-offvalue | FDG response, n (%) | FDG-PET/CT vs RECIST | PFS | OS |
Riely et al[20] | 2007 | 13 | Max | EORTC | 21 d | 15% | PR 6 (46) SD 7 (54) | |||
Aukema et al[21] | 2010 | 22 | Max | EORTC | 7 d | 25% | PR 6 (26) SD 16 (70) PD 1 (4) | |||
Mileshkin et al[11] | 2011 | 51 | Max | EORTC | 14 d | 15% | PR 13 (26) SD 17 (33) PD 21 (41) | FDG PR: PR 4 SD 7 PD 2 FDG SD: PR 0 SD 12 PD 5 FDG PD: PR 0 SD 7 PD 14 | R 5.5 mo NR 2.5 mo | R 11.6 mo NR 7.6 mo |
Zander et al[22] | 2011 | 34 | Peak | EORTC | 7 d | 30% | PR 8 (24) SD/PD 26 (76) | FDG PR: PR/SD 6 PD 2 FDG SD/PD: PR/SD 5 PD 21 | R 7.8 mo NR 1.5 mo | R 16.1mo NR 3.4mo |
Benz et al[23] | 2011 | 22 | Max | PRECIST | 14 d | 30% | PR 6 (27) SD 7 (32) PD 9 (41) | R 11.1 mo NR 2.4 mo | R 16.4 mo NR 14.7 mo | |
Takahashi et al[25] | 2012 | 20 | Max | EORTC | 2 d | 25% | PR 10 (50) SD 8 (40) PD 2 (10) | FDG PR: PR 8 SD 2 PD 0 FDG SD: PR 2 SD 5 PD 1 FDG PD: PR 0 SD 1 PD 1 | R 10.4 mo NR 1.7 mo |
Table 3 Late [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography acquired together with low dose computed tomography response > 21 d
Ref. | Year ofpublication | n | SUV | Responsecriteria | Cut-offvalue | FDG response time | FDG Responsen (%) | FDG-PET vs RECIST | PFS | OS |
Mileshkin et al[11] | 2011 | 51 | Max | EORTC | 15% | 56 d | PR 8 (16) SD 12 (23) PD 31 (61) | FDG PR: PR 4 SD 4 PD 0 FDG SD: PR 0 SD 11 PD 1 FDG PD: PR 0 SD 11 PD 20 | R 6.5 mo NR 2.7 mo | R 11.9 mo NR 7.6 mo |
Zander et al[22] | 2011 | 34 | Peak | EORTC | 42 d | n/a | n/a | |||
Benz et al[23] | 2011 | 22 | Max | PRECIST | 78 d | n/a | n/a | |||
O'Brien et al[24] | 2012 | 47 | Max | EORTC | 25% | 42 d | PR 15 (32) SD 8 (17) PD 15 (32) NE 9 (19) | FDG PR: PR 11 SD 2 PD 2 FDG SD: PR 0 SD 4 PD 4 FDG PD: PR 0 SD 2 PD 7 | ||
Takahashi et al[25] | 2012 | 20 | Max | EORTC | 28 d | n/a | n/a |
Table 4 Epidermal growth factor receptor
Ref. | Year of publication | n | EGFR selection | EGFR mutation (n) | Cut-off value | FDG | PFS |
Riely et al[20] | 2007 | 13 | Only EGFR mutated tumors | 8 | n/a | ||
Aukema et al[21] | 2010 | 22 | No selection | 4 | 25% | ||
Milishkin et al[11] | 2011 | 51 | No selection | 4 | > 15% | EGFR + PR 3 PD 2 SD 0 EGFR - PR SD PD | |
Zander et al[22] | 2011 | 34 | No selection | 4 | EGFR + 6.4 mo EGFR - 1.6 mo | ||
Benz et al[23] | 2011 | 22 | No selection | 5 | |||
O'Brien et al[24] | 2012 | 47 | No selection | 11 | |||
Takahashi et al[25] | 2012 | 20 | No selection | 12 | EGFR+ PR 8 SD 3 PD 1 EGFR- PR SD PD |
- Citation: van Gool MH, Aukema TS, Hartemink KJ, Valdés Olmos RA, van Tinteren H, Klomp HM. FDG-PET/CT response evaluation during EGFR-TKI treatment in patients with NSCLC. World J Radiol 2014; 6(7): 392-398
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v6/i7/392.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i7.392