Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):996-1001.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.029. Epub 2018 Mar 2.

Multimodal Imaging of Pathologic Response to Chemoradiation in Esophageal Cancer

Penny Fang  1 , Benjamin C Musall  2 , Jong Bum Son  2 , Amy C Moreno  1 , Brian P Hobbs  3 , Brett W Carter  3 , Bryan M Fellman  4 , Osama Mawlawi  2 , Jingfei Ma  2 , Steven H Lin  5
Affiliations

Multimodal Imaging of Pathologic Response to Chemoradiation in Esophageal Cancer

Penny Fang et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the value of early changes in quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for discriminating complete pathologic response (pCR) to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer.

Methods and materials: Twenty esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiation followed by surgery were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET/CT scans at baseline, interim (2 weeks after chemoradiation start), and first follow-up. On the basis of pathologic findings at surgery, patients were categorized into tumor regression groups (TRG1, TRG2, and TRG3+). Distributions of summary statistics in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and FDG-PET at baseline and relative changes at interim and follow-up scans were compared between pCR/TRG1 and non-pCR/TRG2+ groups and across readers. Receiver operating characteristics were evaluated for summary measures to characterize discrimination of pCR from non-pCR.

Results: Relative changes in tumor volume ADC (ΔADC) mean and 25th and 10th percentiles from baseline to interim were able to completely discriminate (area under the curve = 1, P < .0011) between pCR and non-pCR (thresholds = 27.7%, 29.2%, and 32.1%, respectively) and were found to have high interreader reliability (95% limits of agreement of 1.001, 0.944, and 0.940, respectively). Relative change in total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from baseline to interim was significantly different among pCR and non-pCR groups (P=.0117) and yielded an area under the curve of 0.947 (95% confidence interval 0.8505-1.043). An optimal threshold of 59% decrease in TLG provided optimal sensitivity (specificity) of 1.000 (0.867). Changes in ADC summary measures were negatively correlated with that of TLG (Spearman, -0.495, P=.027).

Conclusions: Quantitative volume ΔADC and TLG during treatment may serve as early imaging biomarkers for discriminating pathologic response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Validation of these data in larger, prospective, multicenter studies is essential.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest Notification: SHL receives research funding from Elekta Inc., STCube Pharmaceuticals, Hitachi Chemicals, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, and honorarium from AstraZeneca, however none are in conflict with the research in question. BPH reports a consultantship with Ignyta, Inc. that is unrelated to the research in this study.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Images and parameter maps across imaging modalities on the same axial slice of tumor: diffusion images b200 (a) and b0 (b), ADC map (c), CT (d), FDG-PET (e), and T2 weighted (f).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of biomarker distributions between pCR and non-pCR for (a) ΔADC mean and (b) ΔTLG. In the dot plots, 95% confidence intervals are shown as well as solid horizontal bars indicating average biomarker value for each response group. Dotted lines show cutoffs optimized by Youden’s index. Below each plot is an ROC curve showing the classification performance of its respective biomarker.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Maas M, Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Lammering G, Nelemans PJ, Engelen SME, et al. Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 10;29(35):4633–40. - PubMed
    1. Swisher SG, Moughan J, Komaki RU, Ajani JA, Wu TT, Hofstetter WL, et al. Final Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0246: An Organ-Preserving Selective Resection Strategy in Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Definitive Chemoradiation. J Thorac Oncol Off Publ Int Assoc Study Lung Cancer. 2016 Oct 8;
    1. Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouché O, Milan C, Mariette C, Conroy T, et al. Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 1;25(10):1160–8. - PubMed
    1. Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, Meyer H-J, Walz MK, Seeber S, et al. Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 1;23(10):2310–7. - PubMed
    1. Schneider PM, Metzger R, Schaefer H, Baumgarten F, Vallbohmer D, Brabender J, et al. Response evaluation by endoscopy, rebiopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound does not accurately predict histopathologic regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008 Dec;248(6):902–8. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances