Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer assessed with CT and FDG-PET/CT – RECIST 1.1 vs. PERCIST 1.0

Abstract

PurposeWe compared the response classification systems Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) 1.0 for assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. Materials and methodsPrior to planned surgical resection, 62 patients with esophageal cancer underwent fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT examinations before and after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary tumor largest diameter, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak lean body mass SUV (SULpeak), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were determined. Patients were divided into responders (grade 1b-3) and non-responders (grade 0-1a) according to pathological response. ResultsConcordance between RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 for response classification was seen in 28 (45.2%) patients. For 18 defined as responders, the number of metabolic responders (partial metabolic response + complete metabolic response) shown by PERCIST 1.0 was 17 and the number of anatomic responders (partial response + complete response) shown by RECIST 1.1 was 13. To distinguish responders from non-responders, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve values for reduced primary tumor largest diameter, SUVmax, SULpeak, MTV, and TLG were 0.724, 0.775, 0.781, 0.756, and 0.759, respectively. An optimal percent decrease in largest diameter cut-off value of 39.2% was found to have 66.7% sensitivity and 70.5% specificity, while that for SULpeak of 55.8% was 77.8% and 75.0%, respectively. ConclusionsAs compared to RECIST 1.1, PERSIST 1.0 may be more suitable for evaluation of neoadjuvant therapeutic response to esophageal cancer.