Validation of Metabolically Active Tumor Volume and Total Lesion Glycolysis as 18F-FDG PET/CT–derived Prognostic Biomarkers in Chemorefractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

This study aimed to validate the prognostic value of baseline whole-body metabolically active tumor volume (WB-MATV) and total lesion glycolysis (WB-TLG) measured with 18F-FDG PET/CT in a large cohort of chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with multikinase inhibitors. The secondary objective of this study was to compare WB-MATV and WB-TLG respective prognostic values with commonly used clinical prognostic factors. Methods: Of 238 patients pooled from 2 successive prospective multicenter trials investigating multikinase inhibitors in chemorefractory mCRC, 224 were considered suitable for analysis. The patients were retrospectively randomly assigned to a development set (n = 155 patients) or a validation set (n = 69 patients). WB-MATV and WB-TLG optimal cutoffs for prediction of overall survival (OS) were determined by Contal and O’Quigley’s method. Univariate analyses were performed to assess the prognostic values of WB-MATV and WB-TLG. Multivariate analyses were performed for WB-MATV and WB-TLG along with clinical factors to identify the independent prognostic factors of OS. The prognostic weight for each parameter was obtained from the Cox model. Results: WB-MATV and WB-TLG optimal cutoffs for OS prediction were 100 cm3 and 500 g, respectively. Univariate analyses showed that WB-MATV and WB-TLG parameters were strongly related to outcome in both the development and the validation sets. In the validation set, the median OS was 5.2 mo versus 12.8 mo for high versus low WB-MATV (hazard ratio [HR], 3.12; P < 0.001) and 4.7 mo versus 13.9 mo for high versus low WB-TLG (HR, 3.67; P < 0.001). The multivariate analyses found that both high WB-MATV and high WB-TLG were independent negative prognostic parameters for OS, having the highest prognostic weight among the well-known clinical prognostic factors (HR, 2.46 and 2.23, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Baseline WB-MATV and WB-TLG parameters were validated as strong prognosticators of outcome in a large cohort of chemorefractory mCRC patients treated with multikinase inhibitors. These parameters were identified as independent prognostic imaging biomarkers with the highest prognostic values among the commonly used clinical factors. These biomarkers should therefore be used to support the optimal therapeutic strategy.

[1]  Seung-Yong Jeong,et al.  Total lesion glycolysis (TLG) as an imaging biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with regorafenib , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  Jeffrey P Leal,et al.  Quantitation of Cancer Treatment Response by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Multicenter Assessment of Measurement Variability , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  G. Beretta,et al.  Estimating 12-week death probability in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: the Colon Life nomogram , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[4]  G. Salles,et al.  Baseline Metabolic Tumor Volume Predicts Outcome in High-Tumor-Burden Follicular Lymphoma: A Pooled Analysis of Three Multicenter Studies. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  C. Tournigand,et al.  Body Mass Index Is Prognostic in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Pooled Analysis of Patients From First-Line Clinical Trials in the ARCAD Database. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  J Ricke,et al.  ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[7]  P. Gaulard,et al.  Prognostic value of baseline total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV0) measured on FDG-PET/CT in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  W. Oyen,et al.  Impact of Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/Computed Tomography on the Management of Patients with Colorectal Cancer. , 2015, PET clinics.

[9]  S. Krishnamoorthy,et al.  Management of regorafenib-related toxicities: a review , 2015, Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology.

[10]  K. Hirakawa,et al.  The pretreatment albumin to globulin ratio predicts chemotherapeutic outcomes in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer , 2015, BMC Cancer.

[11]  C. Mathers,et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 , 2015, International journal of cancer.

[12]  P. Flamen,et al.  Regorafenib assessment in refractory advanced colorectal cancer: RegARd-C study protocol , 2015, BMJ Open.

[13]  R. Wahl,et al.  Two-time-point FDG PET/CT: liver SULmean repeatability. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[15]  D. Sargent,et al.  Association of age with survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  H. Tilly,et al.  Pretherapy metabolic tumour volume is an independent predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[17]  T. Conroy,et al.  Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[18]  Takaaki Kobayashi,et al.  Modified Glasgow prognostic score in patients with incurable stage IV colorectal cancer. , 2013, American journal of surgery.

[19]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  Marc Kachelriess,et al.  Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[22]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[23]  B. Loo,et al.  Metabolic tumor volume predicts overall survival and local control in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated in ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[24]  A. Lièvre,et al.  Prognostic impact of tumour burden assessed by metabolic tumour volume on FDG PET/CT in anal canal cancer , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[25]  M. Piccart-Gebhart,et al.  SoMore trial: Early metabolic response assessment of a sorafenib (SOR) and capecitabine (CAP) combination in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). , 2014 .

[26]  Peter Smeets,et al.  Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[27]  Sumithra J. Mandrekar,et al.  Finding Optimal Cutpoints for Continuous Covariates with Binary and Time-to-Event Outcomes , 2006 .