Assessment of mediastinal tumors using SUVmax and volumetric parameters on FDG PET/CT

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine and Tracer Kinetics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine

2 Department of Radiology, Osaka University Hospital

3 Department of Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine

4 Department of Molecular Imaging in Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine

Abstract

Objective(s): This study aimed to evaluate the role of pretreatment SUVmax and volumetric FDG positron emission tomography (PET) parameters in the differentiation between benign and malignant mediastinal tumors. In addition, we investigated whether pretreatment SUVmax and volumetric FDG-PET parameters could distinguish thymomas from thymic carcinomas, and low-risk from high-risk thymomas.
Methods: This study was conducted on 52 patients with mediastinal tumors undergoing FDG-PET/CT. Histological examination indicated that 29 mediastinal tumors were benign, and 23 cases were malignant. To obtain quantitative PET/CT parameters, we determined the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), volumetric parameters, metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) for primary tumors using SUVmax cut-off value of 2.5. SUVmax, MTV and TLG of benign and malignant tumors were compared
using the Mann-Whitney U test. Moreover, receiver-operating curve (ROC) analysis was applied to identify the cut-off values of SUVmax, MTV and TLG for the accurate differentiation of benign and malignant tumors. SUVmax, MTV and TLG were compared between thymomas and thymic carcinomas, as well as low-risk and high-risk thymomas.
Results: Mean SUVmax, MTV and TLG of malignant mediastinal tumors were significantly higher compared to benign tumors (P<0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of SUVmax were 78.2%, 86.2%, 82.6%,81.8%, and 83.3%, respectively. These values were estimated at 82.6%, 96.6%, 90.4%,95%, and 87.5% for MTV and TLG, respectively. Additionally, optimal cut-off values for the differentiation of benign and malignant mediastinal tumors were determined at 4.2 and 22.3 mL and 79.7 g for SUVmax, MTV and TLG, respectively. Mean SUVmax, MTV and TLG of thymic carcinomas were significantly higher compared to thymomas (P<0.01), while no significant differences were observed in the mean quantitative parameters between low-risk and high-risk thymomas.
Conclusion: Although SUVmax, MTV and TLG could not distinguish between low-risk and high-risk thymomas, these parameters might be able to differentiate benign tumors from malignant mediastinal tumors  noninvasively. These parameters could be used to distinguish between thymomas and thymic carcinomas as well. Therefore, FDG-PET/CT parameters seem to be accurate indices for the detection of malignant mediastinal tumors.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Strollo DC, Rosado de Christenson ML, Jett JR. Primary mediastinal tumors. Part 1: Tumors of the anterior mediastinum. Chest. 1997; 112(2):511-22.
2. Okumura M, Ohta M, Tateyama H, Nakagawa K, Matsumura A, Maeda H, et al. The World Health Organization histologic classification system reflects the oncologic behavior of thymoma: a clinical study
of 273 patients. Cancer. 2002;94(3):624-32.
3. Okumura M, Miyoshi S, Fujii Y, Takeuchi Y, Shiono H, Inoue M, et al. Clinical and functional significance of WHO classification on human thymic epithelial neoplasms: a study of 146 consecutive tumors. Am
J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(1):103-10.
4. Chen G, Marx A, Chen WH, Yong J, Puppe B, Stroebel P, et al. New WHO histologic classification predicts prognosis of thymic epithelial tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 200 thymoma cases from China. Cancer. 2002;95(2):420-9.
5. Marchevsky AM, Gupta R, McKenna RJ, Wick M, Moran C, Zakowski MF, et al. Evidence-based pathology and the pathologic evaluation of thymomas: the world health organization classification can be simplified into only 3 categories other than thymic carcinoma.Cancer. 2008;112(12):2780-8.
6. Strollo DC, Rosado-de-Christenson ML, Jett JR. Primary mediastinal tumors: part II. Tumors of the middle and posterior mediastinum. Chest. 1997;112(5):1344-57.
7. Landwehr P, Schulte O, Lackner K. MR imaging of the chest:  mediastinum and chest wall. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(9):1737-44.
8. Whitten CR, Khan S, Munneke GJ, Grubnic S. A diagnostic approach to mediastinal abnormalities. Radiographics. 2007;27(3):657-71.
9. Ahn JM, Lee KS, Goo JM, Song KS, Kim SJ, Im JG. Predicting the histology of anterior mediastinal masses: comparison of chest radiography and CT. J Thorac Imaging. 1996;11(4):265-71.
10. Link KM, Samuels LJ, Reed JC, Loehr SP, Lesko NM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the mediastinum. J Thorac Imaging.  1993; 8(1):34-53.
11. Gamsu G, Stark DD, Webb WR, Moore EH, Sheldon PE. Magnetic resonance imaging of benign mediastinal masses. Radiology. 1984; 151(3):709-13.
12. Tomiyama N, Honda O, Tsubamoto M, Inoue A, Sumikawa H, Kuriyama K, et al. Anterior mediastinal tumors: diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69(2):280-8.
13. Kawashima A, Fishman EK, Kuhlman JE, Nixon MS. CT of posterior mediastinal masses. Radiographics.1991;11(6):1045-67.
14. 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-50S.
15. Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF. Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2012;264(2):559-66.
16. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, Cheze-Le Rest C. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(7):1191-202.
17. 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(3):159-71.
18. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(1):27-38.
19. Kubota K, Yamada S, Kondo T, Yamada K, Fukuda H, Fujiwara T, et al. PET imaging of primary mediastinal tumours. Br J Cancer. 1996; 73(7):882-6.
20. Luzzi L, Campione A, Gorla A, Vassallo G, Bianchi A, Biggi A, et al. Role of fluorine-flurodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/ computed tomography in preoperative assessment of anterior
mediastinal masses. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg. 2009;36(3):475-9.
21. Hanamoto A, Tatsumi M, Takenaka Y, Hamasaki T, Yasui T, Nakahara S, et al. Volumetric PET/CT parameters predict local response of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to  chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Med. 2014;3(5):1368-76.
22. Kao CH, Lin SC, Hsieh TC, Yen KY, Yang SN, Wang YC, et al. Use of pretreatment metabolic tumour volumes to predict the outcome of pharyngeal cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(8):1297-305.
23. Chen SW, Chen WT, Wu YC, Yen KY, Hsieh TC, Lin TY, et al. Which FDG/PET parameters of the primary tumors in colon or sigmoid cancer provide the best correlation with the pathological findings? Eur J
Radiol. 2013;82(9):e405-10.
24. Endo M, Nakagawa K, Ohde Y, Okumura T, Kondo H, Igawa S, et al. Utility of 18FDG-PET for differentiating the grade of malignancy in thymic epithelial tumors.Lung Cancer. 2008;61(3):350-5.
25. Igai H, Matsuura N, Tarumi S, Chang SS, Misaki N, Go T, et al. Usefulness of [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography for predicting the World Health Organization malignancy grade of thymic epithelial tumors. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg. 2011; 40(1):143-5.
26. Lococo F, Cesario A, Okami J, Cardillo G, Cavuto S, Tokunaga T, et al. Role of combined 18F-FDG-PET/CT for predicting the WHO malignancy grade of thymic epithelial tumors: a multicenter analysis.
Lung Cancer. 2013;82(2):245-51.
27. Kaira K, Endo M, Abe M, Nakagawa K, Ohde Y, Okumura T, et al. Biologic correlation of 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake on positron emission tomography in thymic epithelial tumors. J
Clin Oncol. 2010;28(23):3746-53.
28. Terzi A, Bertolaccini L, Rizzardi G, Luzzi L, Bianchi A, Campione A, et al. Usefulness of 18-F FDG PET/CT in the pre-treatment evaluation of thymic epithelial neoplasms. Lung Cancer. 2011;74(2):239-43.
29. Kumar A, Regmi SK, Dutta R, Kumar R, Gupta SD, Das P, et al. Characterization of thymic masses using 18F-FDG PET-CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23(6):569-77.
30. Sung YM, Lee KS, Kim BT, Choi JY, Shim YM, Yi CA. 18F-FDG PET/CT of thymic epithelial tumors: usefulness for distinguishing and staging tumor subgroups. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(10):1628-34.
31. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med.2009;50(Suppl 1):11-21.
32. Liu Y, Ghesani NV, Zuckier LS. Physiology and pathophysiology of incidental findings detected on FDG-PET scintigraphy. Semin Nucl Med.
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology
Volume 5, Issue 1
January 2017
Pages 22-29

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics