OBJECTIVE: To investigate metabolic parameters as predictive of local response after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver-oligometastases. METHODS: Inclusion criteria of the present retrospective study were: (a) liver oligometastases with controlled primary tumor; (b) absence of progressive disease ≥6 months; (c) metastases ≤ 3; (d) evaluation of SBRT-response by means of 18-fludeoxyglucose-PET/CT for at least two subsequent evaluations; (e) Karnofsky performance status >80; (f) life-expectancy >6 months. The following metabolic parameters were defined semi-quantitatively for each metastases: (1) standardized uptake value (SUVmax; (2) SUV-mean; (3) metabolic tumor volume (MTV), tumor volume with a SUV ≥3, threshold 40%; (4) total lesion glycolysis (TLG), i.e. the product of SUV-mean and MTV. Local control was defined as absence of recurrence in the field of irradiation. RESULTS: 41 liver metastases were analyzed. Pre-SBRT, median SUV-max was 8.7 (range, 4.5-23.59), median SUV-mean was 4.6 (range, 3-7.5), median MTV was 5.7 cc (range, 0.9-80.6) and median total lesion glycolysis was 24.1 (range, 3.6-601.5). At statistical analysis, metastases with SUV-mean >5 (p 0.04; odds ratio 4.75, sensitivity = 50%, specificity = 82.6%, area under the curve 0.66) and SUV-max >12 (p 0.02; odds ratio 5.03, sensitivity = 69%, specificity = 70%, area under the curve = 0.69) showed higher rates of infield-failure compared to the remaining lesions. CONCLUSION: According to current findings, pre-SBRT SUV-max and SUV-mean could be predictable of local response in liver oligometastases. Advances in knowledge: Present findings could support the hypothesis that fludeoxyglucose-PET/CT may be a powerful tool to predict tumor control. Specifically, current results might be helpful for clinicians in the decision-making process regarding liver oligometastatic patient selection as well as the individual therapy stratification distinguishing between slowly local progressing patients and rapidly progressing patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mazzola et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: