| Title |
Diagnostic and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in recurrent germinal tumor carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-017-3811-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pierpaolo Alongi, Laura Evangelista, Federico Caobelli, Marianna Spallino, Luigi Gianolli, Massimo Midiri, Maria Picchio |
| Abstract |
The aim of this bicentric retrospective study was to assess the diagnostic performance, the prognostic value, the incremental prognostic value and the impact on therapeutic management of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected recurrent germinal cell testicular carcinoma (GCT). From the databases of two centers including 31,500 (18)F-FDG PET/CT oncological studies, 114 patients affected by GCT were evaluated in a retrospective study. All 114 patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for suspected recurrent disease. Diagnostic performance of visually interpreted (18)F-FDG PET/CT and potential impact on the treatment decision were assessed using histology (17 patients), other diagnostic imaging modalities (i.e., contrast enhanced CT in 89 patients and MRI in 15) and clinical follow-up (114 patients) as reference. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were computed by means of Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The progression rate (Hazard Ratio-HR) was determined using univariate Cox regression analysis by considering various clinical variables. Recurrent GCT was confirmed in 47 of 52 patients with pathological (18)F-FDG PET/CT findings, by means of histology in 18 patients and by other diagnostic imaging modalities/follow-up in 29. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR-, respectively), pre-test Odds-ratio and post-test Odds-ratio of (18)FDG PET/CT were 86.8%, 90.2%, 88.4%, 8.85, 0.14, 0.85, 8.85, respectively.(18)F-FDG PET/CT impacted significantly on therapeutic management in 26/114 (23%) cases (from palliative to curative in 12 patients, from "wait and watch" to new chemotherapy in six patients and the "wait-and-watch" approach in eight patients with unremarkable findings). At 2 and 5-year follow-up, PFS was significantly longer in patients with a negative than a pathological (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan (98% and 95% vs 48% and 38%, respectively; p = 0.02). An unremarkable scan was associated also with a longer OS (98% after 2 years and 95% after 5 years, p = 0.02). At univariate Cox regression analysis, a pathological (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan was associated with an increased risk of disease progression (HR = 24.3, CI 95% 14.1-40.6; p = 0.03) and lower OS (HR = 17.3 CI 95% 4,9-77; p < 0.001). Its prognostic value was confirmed also if tested against advanced disease at diagnosis and rising Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Beta (HCGB) or Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) (HR = 7.3 for STAGE III-PET+, p = 0.03; HR = 14.3 elevated HCGB-PET+, p = 0.02; HR 10.7 elevated AFP-PET+, p = 0.01) At multivariate analysis, only a pathological (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan and advanced disease in terms of TNM staging were predictors of disease progression and OS. (18)F-FDG PET/CT showed incremental value over other variables both in predicting PFS (chi-square from 24 to 40, p < 0.001) and OS (chi-square from 32 to 38, p = 0.003). (18)F-FDG PET/CT has a very good diagnostic performance in patients with suspected recurrent GCT and has an important prognostic value in assessing the rate of PFS and OS. Furthermore, (18)F-FDG PET/CT impacted the therapeutic regimen in 23% of patients, thus providing a significant impact in the restaging process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 39% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,214,418
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#2,305
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,380
of 318,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#24
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.