Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative analyses at baseline and interim PET evaluation for response assessment and outcome definition in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Quantitative analyses on FDG PET for response assessment are increasingly used in clinical studies, particularly with respect to tumours in which radiological assessment is challenging and complete metabolic response is rarely achieved after treatment. A typical example is malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), an aggressive tumour originating from mesothelial cells of the pleura. We present our results concerning the use of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters, evaluated at the baseline and interim PET examinations, for the prediction of treatment response and disease outcome in patients with MPM.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data derived from 131 patients (88 men, 43 women; mean age 66 years) with MPM who were referred to our institution for treatment between May 2004 and July 2013. Patients were investigated using FDG PET at baseline and after two cycles of pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. Responses were determined using modified RECIST criteria based on the best CT response after treatment. Disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated for the whole population and were correlated with semiquantitative and quantitative parameters evaluated at the baseline and interim PET examinations; these included SUVmax, total lesion glycolysis (TLG), percentage change in SUVmax (ΔSUVmax) and percentage change in TLG (ΔTLG).

Results

Disease control was achieved in 84.7 % of the patients, and median PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 7.2 and 14.3 months, respectively. The log-rank test showed a statistically significant difference in PFS between patients with radiological progression and those with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) (1.8 vs. 8.6 months, p < 0.001). Baseline SUVmax and TLG showed a statistically significant correlation with PFS and OS (p < 0.001). In the entire population, both ΔSUVmax and ΔTLG were correlated with disease control based on best CT response (p < 0.001). ΔSUVmax was significantly correlated with PFS in the entire population (p = 0.02) and with both PFS and OS in patients not undergoing talc pleurodesis (n = 65; p < 0.01 for PFS, p = 0.03 for OS), and in patients without pleurodesis presenting a SD and/or PR at CT after two cycles.

Conclusion

These results confirm the role of FDG PET in the assessment of disease prognosis and treatment efficacy in MPM patients receiving first-line pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. In particular, metabolic response evaluated using ΔSUVmax can be used to predict outcome in MPM patients not undergoing talc pleurodesis who achieve SD and/or PR at the interim CT evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robinson BWS, Musk AW, Lake AR. Malignant mesothelioma. Lancet. 2005;366:397–408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sugarbaker DJ, Flores RM, Jaklitsch MT, Richards WG, Strauss GM, Corson JM, et al. Resection margins, extrapleural nodal status, and cell type determine postoperative long-term survival in trimodality therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 183 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;117:54–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Byrne MJ, Nowak AK. Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:257–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Armato SG, Labby ZE, Coolen J, Klabatsa A, Feigen M, Persigehl T, et al. Imaging in pleural mesothelioma: a review of the 11th International Conference of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Lung Cancer. 2013;82:190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Armato III SG, Ogarek JL, Starkey A, Vogelzang NJ, Kindler HL, Kocherginsky M, et al. Variability in mesothelioma tumor response classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1000–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Oxnard GR, Armato III SG, Kindler HL. Modeling of mesothelioma growth demonstrates weakness of current response criteria. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:141–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ceresoli GL, Chiti A, Zucali PA, Cappuzzo F, De Vincenzo F, Cavina R, et al. Assessment of tumor response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33:533–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, 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;2:159–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ceresoli GL, Chiti A, Zucali PA, Rodari M, Lutman RF, Salamina S, et al. Early evaluation in malignant pleural mesothelioma by positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4587–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Francis RJ, Byrne MJ, van der Schaaf AA, Boucek JA, Nowak AK, Phillips M, et al. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy and survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma using a novel semiautomated 3-dimensional volume-based analysis of serial 18F-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1449–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Veit-Haibach P, Schaefer NG, Steinert HC, Soyka JD, Seifert B, Stahel RA. Combined FDG-PET/CT in response evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2010;67:311–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee HY, Hyun SH, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim J, Shim YM, et al. Volume-based parameter of 18F-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2787–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Genestreti G, Moretti A, Piciucchi S, Giovannini N, Galassi R, Scarpi E, et al. FDG PET/CT response evaluation in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients treated with talc pleurodesis and chemotherapy. J Cancer. 2012;3:241–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schaefer NG, Veit-Haibach P, Soyka JD, Steinert HC, Stahel RA. Continued pemetrexed and platin-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): value of 18F-FDGPET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klabatsa A, Chicklore S, Barrington S, Goh V, Lang-Lazdunski L, Cook GJ. The association of 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters with survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:276–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boucek J, Francis RJ, Green AJ. Automated approach to identification and quantitation of tumour volumes in chemotherapy monitoring using FDG PET [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2005;46 Suppl:464P.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lopci E, Zucali P, Giordano L, Perrino M, Ceresoli G, Gemelli M, et al. Validation of liver-based quantitative analysis on PET for response assessment in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Nucl Med. 2014;55 Suppl 1:458.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lang-Lazdunski L, Bille A, Lal R, Cane P, McLean E, Landau D, et al. Pleurectomy/decortication is superior to extrapleural pneumonectomy in the multimodality management of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:737–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellis P, Davies AM, Evans WK, Haynes AE, Lloyd NS. The use of chemotherapy in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and practice guideline. J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1:591–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ceresoli GL, Castagneto B, Zucali PA, Favaretto A, Mencoboni M, Grossi F, et al. Pemetrexed plus carboplatin in elderly patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: combined analysis of two phase II trials. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(1):51–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahamad A, Stevens C, Smythe W, Liao Z, Vaporciyan AA, Rice D, et al. Promising early local control of malignant pleural mesothelioma following postoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to the chest. Cancer J. 2003;9:476–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sterman DH, Haas A, Moon E, Recio A, Schwed D, Vachani A, et al. A trial of intrapleural adenoviral-mediated interferon-alpha2b gene transfer for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184:1395–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lucchi M, Chella A, Melfi F, Dini P, Tibaldi C, Fontanini G, et al. Four-modality therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a phase II study. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kruse M, Sherry SJ, Paidpally V, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET/CT in management of primary pleural tumors and pleural metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W215–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, Denham C, Kaukel E, Ruffie P, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2636–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nowak AK, Lake RA, Kindler HL, Robinson BW. New approaches for mesothelioma: biologics, vaccines, gene therapy, and other novel agents. Semin Oncol. 2002;29:82–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Terada T, Tabata C, Tabata R, Okuwa H, Kanemura S, Shibata E, et al. Clinical utility of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Exp Ther Med. 2012;4:197–200.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cao C, Tian DH, Pataky KA, Yan TD. Systematic review of pleurectomy in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2013;81:319–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Herndon JE, Green MR, Chahinian AP, Corson JM, Suzuki Y, Vogelzang NJ. Factors predictive of survival among 337 patients with mesothelioma treated between 1984 and 1994 by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Chest. 1998;113:723–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Edwards JG, Abrams KR, Leverment JN, Spyt TJ, Waller DA, O’Byrne KJ. Prognostic factors for malignant mesothelioma in 142 patients: validation of CALGB and EORTC prognostic scoring systems. Thorax. 2000;55:731–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nowak AK, Francis RJ, Phillips MJ, Millward MJ, van der Schaaf AA, Boucek J, et al. A novel prognostic model for malignant mesothelioma incorporating quantitative FDG-PET imaging with clinical parameters. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2409–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Abakay A, Komek H, Abakay O, Palanci Y, Ekici F, Tekbas G, et al. Relationship between 18FDG PET-CT findings and survival of 177 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17:1233–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steinert HC, Santos Dellea MM, Burger C, Stahel R. Therapy response evaluation in malignant pleural mesothelioma with integrated PET-CT imaging. Lung Cancer. 2005;49 Suppl 1:S33–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kwek BH, Auino SL, Fischman AJ. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after talc pleurodesis. Chest. 2004;125:2356–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ahmadzadehfar H, Palmedo H, Strunk H, Biersack HJ, Habibi E, Ezziddin S. False positive 18F-FDG-PET/CT in a patient after talc pleurodesis. Lung Cancer. 2007;58:418–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Novak AK, Armato SG, Ceresoli GL, Yildirim H, Francis RJ. Imaging in pleural mesothelioma: a review of imaging research presented at the 9th International Meeting of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Lung Cancer. 2010;70:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33 Suppl 13:S27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Strorto G, Nicolai E, Salvatore M. [18F]FDG-PET/CT for early monitoring of tumor response: when and why. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;53:167–80.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50.

  42. Curran D, Sahmoud T, Therasse P, van Meerbeeck J, Postmus PE, Giaccone G. Prognostic factors in patients with pleural mesothelioma: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:145–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy

    Egesta Lopci & Arturo Chiti

  2. Oncology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy

    Paolo Andrea Zucali, Matteo Perrino, Letizia Gianoncelli, Elena Lorenzi, Maria Gemelli & Armando Santoro

  3. Oncology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy

    Giovanni Luca Ceresoli

  4. Biostatistics, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy

    Laura Giordano

Authors
  1. Egesta Lopci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Andrea Zucali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni Luca Ceresoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matteo Perrino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Giordano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Letizia Gianoncelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elena Lorenzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maria Gemelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Armando Santoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Arturo Chiti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Egesta Lopci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lopci, E., Zucali, P.A., Ceresoli, G.L. et al. Quantitative analyses at baseline and interim PET evaluation for response assessment and outcome definition in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42, 667–675 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2960-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2960-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation