Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 52 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 67 - 72 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016 İndeks Tarihi: 02-07-2020

The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer

Öz:
Objective: We aimed to investigate the relationship between the use of fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), maximized standardized uptake value(SUVmax) values of tumors, and tumor differentiation and tumor markers during the initial staging of patients with gastric cancer.Materials and Methods: The study included 50 patients (14 women and 36 men; mean age: 63±11 years;age range: 31-80 years) who had undergone initial staging with FDG-PET/CT after the diagnosis of gastriccancer with endoscopic biopsy between January and June 2013. Serum alpha fetoprotein (AFP), carcinogenicantigen 19-9 (CA 19.9), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured in patients prior to imaging. PET/CT images were evaluated for primary tumors, locoregional spread,and distant organ metastases, and classified by tumor-node-metastasis staging. Semiquantitative data werecollected by SUVmax measurements in pathological regions of involvement. Data were analyzed statistically.Results: FDG-PET/CT showed primary gastric cancer with a sensitivity of 87%. Imaging findings were normalin 3 patients (1/3; mucinous adenocarcinoma, 2/3; signet-ring cell adenocarcinoma). With FDG-PET/CT, 3/50patients were classified into Stage 1B, 3/50 patients into Stage 2, 5/50 patients into Stage 3A, 5/50 patientsinto Stage 3B, 5/50 patients into 3C and 29/50 patients into Stage 4. The mean SUVmax was calculatedas 11.35±4.3 (poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma: 5.4±1.7; moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma:10.3±4.8) for the primary tumor and 14.9±6.3 for tumor metastasis. A positive correlation was evidentbetween the measured SUVmax and stage and the grade of primary tumor (p<0.05). While the relationshipbetween SUVmax and levels of serum AFP and CRP was statistically significant (p<0.05), the relationshipbetween SUVmax and levels of serum CA 19-9 and CEA was not statistically significant (p>0.05).Conclusion: The SUVmax of primary tumors was associated with the degree of differentiation of primarytumors and the biochemical tumor markers CRP and AFP. The fact that SUVmax of primary tumors is highsupplies clues about the presence of the factors affecting prognosis of the disease.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer. Accessed on 27 Feb 2019.
  • 2. Polat FR, Duran Y. Gastric Cancer And The İmportance Of Early Diagnosis. Namık Kemal Dergisi 2018; 6: 32-5.
  • 3. Kim AY, Han JK, Seong CK, Kim TK and Choi BI. MRI in staging advanced gastric cancer: is it useful compared with spiral CT? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000; 24: 389-94. [CrossRef]
  • 4. Karapolat İ. Akciğer Kanserinde Tedavi Yanıtını Değerlendirmede FDG PET/BT Görüntüleme. Nucl Med Semin 2018; 4: 43-51. [CrossRef]
  • 5. Aydos U, Akdemir ÜÖ, Atay LÖ. Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging Practices in Oncological Imaging. Nuclear Medicine Seminars 2017; 1: 22-51. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Duman K, Simsek A, Gorgulu S, Yagci G, Peker Y. The role of 2-[f-18] fluoro 2-deoxy d-glucose positron emission tomography in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer. Eurasian J Med 2013; 45: 149-54. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Heikkilä K, Ebrahim S, Lawlor DA. A systematic review of the association between circulating concentrations of C reactive protein and cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 824-33. [CrossRef]
  • 8. Gockel I, Dirksen K, Messow CM, Junginger T. Significance of preoperative C-reactive protein as a parameter of the perioperative course and long term prognosis in squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 3746-50. [CrossRef]
  • 9. Wang H, Guo W, Hu Y, et al. Superiority of the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for predicting overall survival in gastric cancer: Comparative analysis of the 7th and 8th editions in a monoinstitutional cohort. Mol Clin Oncol 2018; 9: 423-31. [CrossRef]
  • 10. Gu L, Chen M, Guo D, et al. PD-L1 and gastric cancer prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0182692. [CrossRef]
  • 11. Kim SK, Kang W, Lee JS, et al. Assesment of Lymph node metastasis using 18F-FDG PET in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 148-55. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Lynch TB. Introduction. PET/CT in Clinical PracticeSpringer-Verlag London; 2007: 1-15.
  • 13. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 288-95. [CrossRef]
  • 14. Kim DW, Park SA, Kim GC. Detecting the recurrence of gastric cancer after curative resection: comparison of FDG PET/CT and contrastenhanced abdominal CT. J Korean Med Sci 2011; 26: 875-80. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, et al. Evaluation of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg 2004; 28: 247-53. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Mediyasten Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi. Ed: Balcı AE. Balcı TA, Çerçi SS. Mediyastenin Kitle Lezyonlarının Değerlendirilmesinde Nükleer Tıbbın Katkısı. TÜSAD 2015; 77-112.
  • 17. Yoshioka T, Yamaguchi K, Kubota K, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET in patients with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent gastric cancer. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 690-9.
  • 18. Göksel S. Mide Kanserinde etyoloji, patogenez ve patoloji. İstanbul; İstanbul Onkoloji Enstitüsü Yayınları. 1998: 181-216.
  • 19. Chang YC, Nagasue N, Kohno H, et al. Clinicopathologic features and long-term results of alpha fetoprotein producing gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 1990; 85: 1480-5.
  • 20. Ychou M, Duffour J, Kramar A, Gourgou S, Grenier J. Clinical significance and prognostic value of CA 72-4 compared with CEA and CA 19-9 in patients with gastric cancer. Dis Markırs 2000; 16: 105-10. [CrossRef]
  • 21. Kodera Y, Yamanura Y, Torii A. The prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA and CA 19-9 in patients with gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 49-56.
  • 22. Bayrak M, Ölmez ÖF, Kurt E, et al. Lokal İleri ve Metastatik Mide Kanserli Hastalarda Tedavi Öncesi AFP, CEA ve CA 19-9 Serum Seviyeleri ile Klinikopatolojik Faktörlerin Arasındaki İlişki. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Derg 2011; 37: 139-43.
  • 23. Dilege E, Mihmanli M, Demir U, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative CEA and CA 19-9 levels in resectable gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 2010; 57: 674-7.
  • 24. Ucar E, Semerci E, Ustun H, Yetim T, Huzmeli C, Gullu M. Prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer. Adv Ther 2008; 25: 1075-84. [CrossRef]
  • 25. Dirican A, Ünal B, Işık B, et al. Corelation between Preoperative Serum CEA, CA19-9, and AFP Levels and Clinicopathologic Factors. Journal of Inonu University Medical Faculty 2008; 15: 233-7.
  • 26. Ishigami S, Natsugoe S, Hokita S, et al. Clinical importance of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels in gastric cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001; 32: 41- 4. [CrossRef]
  • 27. Du Clos TW. Function of C-reactive protein. Ann Med 2000; 32: 274-8. [CrossRef]
  • 28. Nozoe T, Korenaga D, Futatsugi M, Saeki H, Maehara Y, Sugimachi K. Immunohistochemical expression of C-reactive protein in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus significance as a tumor markır. Cancer Lett 2003; 192: 89-95. [CrossRef]
  • 29. Hefler LA, Concin N, Hofstetter G, et al. Serum C-reactive protein as independent prognostic variable in patients with ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 710-4. [CrossRef]
  • 30. Ledue TB, Weiner DL, Sipe J, Poulin SE, Collins MF, Rifai N. Analytical evaluation of particleenhanced immunonephelometric assays for Creactive protein, serum amyloid A, and mannose binding protein in human serum. Ann Clin Biochem 1998; 35: 745-53. [CrossRef]
  • 31. Slaviero KA, Clarke SJ, Rivory LP. Inflammatory response: an unrecognised source of variability in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cancer chemotherapy. Lancet Oncol 2003; 4: 224-32. [CrossRef]
APA MAMAN A, ŞAHİN A, AYAN A (2020). The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. , 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
Chicago MAMAN Adem,ŞAHİN Ali,AYAN Arif Kürşad The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. (2020): 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
MLA MAMAN Adem,ŞAHİN Ali,AYAN Arif Kürşad The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. , 2020, ss.67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
AMA MAMAN A,ŞAHİN A,AYAN A The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. . 2020; 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
Vancouver MAMAN A,ŞAHİN A,AYAN A The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. . 2020; 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
IEEE MAMAN A,ŞAHİN A,AYAN A "The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer." , ss.67 - 72, 2020. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
ISNAD MAMAN, Adem vd. "The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer". (2020), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
APA MAMAN A, ŞAHİN A, AYAN A (2020). The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, 52(1), 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
Chicago MAMAN Adem,ŞAHİN Ali,AYAN Arif Kürşad The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. Eurasian Journal of Medicine 52, no.1 (2020): 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
MLA MAMAN Adem,ŞAHİN Ali,AYAN Arif Kürşad The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, vol.52, no.1, 2020, ss.67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
AMA MAMAN A,ŞAHİN A,AYAN A The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. Eurasian Journal of Medicine. 2020; 52(1): 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
Vancouver MAMAN A,ŞAHİN A,AYAN A The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. Eurasian Journal of Medicine. 2020; 52(1): 67 - 72. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
IEEE MAMAN A,ŞAHİN A,AYAN A "The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer." Eurasian Journal of Medicine, 52, ss.67 - 72, 2020. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016
ISNAD MAMAN, Adem vd. "The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer". Eurasian Journal of Medicine 52/1 (2020), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.19016