medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2020, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2020; 80 (5)

Utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in determining tumor viability in postchemotherapy management of residual seminomatous masses

Mamani-Flores E, Hernández-Toriz N, Huerta-Gómez JC, Quintero-Becerra J, Ayala-Quispe VB

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 1-11
PDF size: 240.74 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: In recent decades, post-chemotherapy management of seminoma has advanced due to the increased use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET). Said method alone or combined with computed tomography (CT) has been proposed as a noninvasive tool for evaluating disease extension. Our aim was to determine its utility in describing tumor viability in the post-chemotherapy management of retroperitoneal residual seminomatous masses.
Materials and methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted. The clinical case records of 53 patients seen within the time frame of 2013- 2018 were reviewed. Treatment response was defined by the Recist 1.1 criteria (for CT) and tumor viability through the SUVmax (in 18F-FDG-PET). According to the results, the patients were divided into groups: surveillance, rescue surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. The PET/CT result was correlated with the histopathologic study (gold standard) in the surgery group (n=17). In the statistical analysis, sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated through the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve. The SPSS v24 software was utilized.
Results: The analysis, with no group discrimination, produced an ROC curve with a cutoff point of 3.150, S 50%, and Sp 60%, values that are neither discriminatory nor useful for defining tumor viability. The rescue surgery group analysis produced S 100%, Sp 25%, PPV 35%, and NPV 100%.
Conclusions: In this first Mexican study, 18F-FDG-PET/CT demonstrated very poor utility for determining tumor viability in post-chemotherapy residual seminomatous masses.


REFERENCES

  1. Treglia G, Sadeghi R, Annunziata S, Caldarella C, Bertagna F, Giovanella L. Diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the postchemotherapy management of patients with seminoma: systematic review and metaanalysis. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:852681. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/852681

  2. Carver BS, Serio AM, Bajorin D, Motzer RJ, Stasi J, Bosl GJ, et al. Improved clinical outcome in recent years for men with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(35):5603–8. doi: https://doi. org/10.1200/jco.2007.13.6283

  3. Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R, Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F, et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):497–513. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.025

  4. Schmoll HJ, Souchon R, Krege S, Albers P, Beyer J, Kollmannsberger C, et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol. 2004;15(9):1377–99. doi: https://doi. org/10.1093/annonc/mdh301

  5. Heidenreich A, Thüer D, Polyakov S. Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in advanced germ cell tumours of the testis. Eur Urol. 2008;53(2):260–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.033

  6. Peckham MJ, Horwich A, Hendry WF. Advanced seminoma: treatment with cisplatinum- based combination chemotherapy or carboplatin (JM8). Br J Cancer. 1985;52(1):7– 13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1985.141

  7. Quek ML, Simma-Chiang V, Stein JP, Pinski J, Quinn DI, Skinner DG. Postchemotherapy residual masses in advanced seminoma: current management and outcomes. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2005;5(5):869–74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.5.5.869

  8. Herr HW, Sheinfeld J, Puc HS, Heelan R, Bajorin DF, Mencel P, et al. Surgery for a postchemotherapy residual mass in seminoma. J Urol. 1997;157(3):860–2. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65065-1

  9. Altamirano-Ley J, Acosta-Borbón G, Ochoa- Carrillo FJ, Vásquez-Escobar R, Hernández- Rojas S, Estrada G. Valor estandarizado de captación máximo, determinado con Tomografía por Emisión de Positrones y Tomografía Computarizada. “Primera experiencia en México”. Anales de Radiología México. 2007;6(2):113–9.

  10. Treglia G, Cason E, Fagioli G. Recent applications of nuclear medicine in diagnostics (I part). Italian Journal of Medicine. 2010;4(2):84– 91. doi: https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2010.84

  11. Hinz S, Schrader M, Kempkensteffen C, Bares R, Brenner W, Krege S, et al. The role of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of residual masses after chemotherapy for advanced stage seminoma. J Urol. 2008;179(3):936–40; discussion 940. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.054

  12. Johns Putra L, Lawrentschuk N, Ballok Z, Hannah A, Poon A, Tauro A, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluation of germ cell tumor after chemotherapy. Urology. 2004;64(6):1202–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.07.024

  13. De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C, Stoiber F, Oechsle K, Sellner F, et al. 2-18fluoro-deoxy- D-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1034–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1200/jco.2004.07.188

  14. Cervera Deval J. RECIST y el radiólogo. Radiologia. 2014;56(3):193–205. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2012.03.010

  15. Lavery HJ, Bahnson RR, Sharp DS, Pohar KS. Management of the residual post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal mass in germ cell tumors. Ther Adv Urol. 2009;1(4):199–207. doi: https:// dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1756287209350315

  16. Ganjoo KN, Chan RJ, Sharma M, Einhorn LH. Positron emission tomography scans in the evaluation of postchemotherapy residual masses in patients with seminoma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(11):3457–60. doi: https://doi. org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.11.3457

  17. Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR, Leslie MD, Harper PG, Huddart RA. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of germ cell tumours at relapse. Br J Cancer. 2000;83(7):863–9. doi: https://dx.doi. org/10.1054%2Fbjoc.2000.1389

  18. Spermon JR, De Geus-Oei LF, Kiemeney L a. LM, Witjes JA, Oyen WJG. The role of (18) fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in initial staging and re-staging after chemotherapy for testicular germ cell tumours. BJU Int. 2002;89(6):549–56. doi: https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02641.x

  19. Lewis DA, Tann M, Kesler K, McCool A, Foster RS, Einhorn LH. Positron emission tomography scans in postchemotherapy seminoma patients with residual masses: a retrospective review from Indiana University Hospital. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(34):e54-55. doi: https://doi. org/10.1200/jco.2006.08.1737

  20. Siekiera J, Małkowski B, Jóźwicki W, Jasiński M, Wronczewski A, Pietrzak T, et al. Can We Rely on PET in the Follow-Up of Advanced Seminoma Patients? UIN. 2012;88(4):405–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000337056

  21. Bachner M, Loriot Y, Gross-Goupil M, Zucali PA, Horwich A, Germa-Lluch J-R, et al. 2-18fluorodeoxy- D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for postchemotherapy seminoma residual lesions: a retrospective validation of the SEMPET trial. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(1):59–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr052

  22. Ambrosini V, Zucchini G, Nicolini S, Berselli A, Nanni C, Allegri V, et al. 18F-FDG PET/ CT impact on testicular tumours clinical management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(4):668–73. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00259-013-2624-3

  23. Bilen MA, Hariri H, Leon C, Guo CC, Kuban DA, Pisters LL, et al. Positive FDGPET/ CT scans of a residual seminoma after chemotherapy and radiotherapy: case report and review of the literature. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014;12(4):e147-150. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.clgc.2014.02.006




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com