Journal of Gastric Cancer

The Korean Gastric Cancer Association (대한위암학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Role of $^{18}F$-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Gastric GIST: Predicting Malignant Potential Pre-operatively

  • Park, Jeon-Woo (Department of Surgery, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Chang-Ho (Department of Pathology, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine) ;
  • Jeong, Duck-Su (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine) ;
  • Chae, Hyun-Dong (Department of Surgery, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2011.07.04
  • Accepted : 2011.09.06
  • Published : 2011.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: It is difficult to obtain biopsies from gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) prior to surgery because GISTs are submucoal tumors, despite being the most common nonepithelial neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Unlike anatomic imaging techniques, PET-CT, which is a molecular imaging tool, can be a useful technique for assessing tumor activity and predicting the malignant potential of certain tumors. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the usefulness of PET-CT as a pre-operative prognostic factor for GISTs by analyzing the correlation between the existing post-operative prognostic factors and the maximum SUV uptake (SUVmax) of pre-operative 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 26 patients who were diagnosed with gastric GISTs and underwent surgery after being examined with pre-operative FDG PET-CT. An analysis of the correlation bewteen (i) NIH risk classification and the Ki-67 proliferation index, which are post-operative prognostic factors, and (ii) the SUVmax of PET-CT, which is a pre-operative prognostic factor, was performed. Results: There were significant correlations between (i) SUVmax and (ii) Ki-67 index, tumor size, mitotic count, and NIH risk group (r=0.854, 0.888, 0.791, and 0.756, respectively). The optimal cut-off value for SUVmax was 3.94 between "low-risk malignancy" and "high-risk malignancy" groups. The sensitivity and specificity of SUVmax for predicting the risk of malignancy were 85.7% and 94.7%, respectively. Conclusions: The SUVmax of PET-CT is associated with Ki-67 index, tumor size, mitotic count, and NIH classification. Therefore, it is believed that PET-CT is a relatively safe, non-invasive diagnostic tool for assessing malignant potential pre-operatively.

Keywords

References

  1. Miettinen M, Majidi M, Lasota J. Pathology and diagnostic criteria of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): a review. Eur J Cancer 2002;38(Suppl 5):S39-S51.
  2. Kindblom LG, Remotti HE, Aldenborg F, Meis-Kindblom JM. Gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor (GIPACT): gastrointestinal stromal tumors show phenotypic characteristics of the interstitial cells of Cajal. Am J Pathol 1998;152:1259-1269.
  3. Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors-- definition, clinical, histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic features and diff erential diagnosis. Virchows Arch 2001;438:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004280000338
  4. Nakahara M, Isozaki K, Hirota S, Miyagawa J, Hase-Sawada N, Taniguchi M, et al. A novel gain-of-function mutation of c-kit gene in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1090-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(98)70079-4
  5. Taniguchi M, Nishida T, Hirota S, Isozaki K, Ito T, Nomura T, et al. Eff ect of c-kit mutation on prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res 1999;59:4297-4300.
  6. Franquemont DW. Diff erentiation and risk assessment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:41-47.
  7. Seidal T, Edvardsson H. Expression of c-kit (CD117) and Ki67 provides information about the possible cell of origin and clinical course of gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Histopathology 1999;34:416-424. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.1999.00643.x
  8. Hasegawa T, Matsuno Y, Shimoda T, Hirohashi S. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: consistent CD117 immunostaining for diagnosis, and prognostic classification based on tumor size and MIB-1 grade. Hum Pathol 2002;33:669-676. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2002.124116
  9. Amin MB, Ma CK, Linden MD, Kubus JJ, Zarbo RJ. Prognostic value of proliferating cell nuclear antigen index in gastric stromal tumors. Correlation with mitotic count and clinical outcome. Am J Clin Pathol 1993;100:428-432.
  10. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C, Gorstein F, Lasota J, Longley BJ, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a consensus approach. Hum Pathol 2002;33:459-465. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2002.123545
  11. Saleem A, Charnley N, Price P. Clinical molecular imaging with positron emission tomography. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1720-1727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.021
  12. Kamiyama Y, Aihara R, Nakabayashi T, Mochiki E, Asao T, Kuwano H, et al. 18F-fl uorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: useful technique for predicting malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World J Surg 2005;29:1429-1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0045-6
  13. Miettinen M, El-Rifai W, Sobin LH, Lasota J. Evaluation of malignancy and prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a review. Hum Pathol 2002;33:478-483. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2002.124123
  14. Appelman HD. Mesenchymal tumors of the gut: historical perspectives, new approaches, new results, and does it make any diff erence? Monogr Pathol 1990;(31):220-246.
  15. Somerhausen Nde S, Fletcher CD. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: an update. Sarcoma 1998;2:133-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13577149877885
  16. Ranchod M, Kempson RL. Smooth muscle tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and retroperitoneum: a pathologic analysis of 100 cases. Cancer 1977;39:255-262. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197701)39:1<255::AID-CNCR2820390139>3.0.CO;2-H
  17. Evans HL. Smooth muscle tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. A study of 56 cases followed for a minimum of 10 years. Cancer 1985;56:2242-2250. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19851101)56:9<2242::AID-CNCR2820560918>3.0.CO;2-5
  18. DeMatteo RP, Lewis JJ, Leung D, Mudan SS, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Two hundred gastrointestinal stromal tumors: recurrence patterns and prognostic factors for survival. Ann Surg 2000;231:51-58. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200001000-00008
  19. Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Blanke CD, Van den Abbeele AD, Eisenberg B, Roberts PJ, et al. Effi cacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med 2002;347:472-480. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020461
  20. Van den Abbeele AD, Badawi RD. Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Eur J Cancer 2002;38(Suppl 5):S60-S65.
  21. Waseem NH, Lane DP. Monoclonal antibody analysis of the proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Structural conservation and the detection of a nucleolar form. J Cell Sci 1990;96(Pt 1):121-129.
  22. Scholzen T, Gerdes J. Th e Ki-67 protein: from the known and the unknown. J Cell Physiol 2000;182:311-322. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4652(200003)182:3<311::AID-JCP1>3.0.CO;2-9
  23. Brown DC, Gatter KC. Ki67 protein: the immaculate deception? Histopathology 2002;40:2-11. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.01343.x
  24. Cummings TJ, Provenzale JM, Hunter SB, Friedman AH, Klintworth GK, Bigner SH, et al. Gliomas of the optic nerve: histological, immunohistochemical (MIB-1 and p53), and MRI analysis. Acta Neuropathol 2000;99:563-570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004010051161
  25. Zlotta AR, Schulman CC. Biological markers in superficial bladder tumors and their prognostic significance. Urol Clin North Am 2000;27:179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70246-9
  26. Indinnimeo M, Cicchini C, Stazi A, Limiti MR, Ghini C, Mingazzini P, et al. Immunohistochemical assessment of Ki-67 as prognostic cellular proliferation marker in anal canal carcinoma. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2000;19:471-475.
  27. Yamada M, Niwa Y, Matsuura T, Miyahara R, Ohashi A, Maeda O, et al. Gastric GIST malignancy evaluated by 18FDG-PET as compared with EUS-FNA and endoscopic biopsy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:633-641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365520601040450
  28. Franquemont DW. Diff erentiation and risk assessment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:41-47.
  29. Hirota S, Ohashi A, Nishida T, Isozaki K, Kinoshita K, Shinomura Y, et al. Gain-of-function mutations of platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha gene in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Gastroenterology 2003;125:660-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(03)01046-1
  30. Schneider-Stock R, Boltze C, Lasota J, Peters B, Corless CL, Ruemmele P, et al. Loss of p16 protein defines high-risk patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a tissue microarray study. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11(2 Pt 1):638-645.

Cited by

  1. A Case of Duodenal Leiomyoma Showing False Positive Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron-Emission Tomography vol.12, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.7704/kjhugr.2012.12.3.198
  2. The efficacy of PET-CT for predicting the malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors vol.43, pp.10, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0411-6
  3. The Usefulness of Preoperative 18FDG Positron-Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography for Predicting the Malignant Potential of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors vol.31, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1159/000357149
  4. Prognostic Stratification of Metastatic Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms by 18F-FDG PET: Feasibility of a Metabolic Grading System vol.55, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.137166
  5. Bedeutung der PET für die Chirurgie des gastrointestinalen Stromatumors vol.85, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-013-2670-1
  6. Spectrum of the prostate lesions with increased FDG uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT vol.39, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0114-0
  7. A case of superficial esophageal carcinoma with papilloma resected by en bloc endoscopic submucosal dissection vol.11, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-013-0403-7
  8. Bedeutung der PET für die Chirurgie des gastrointestinalen Stromatumors vol.37, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00053-015-0525-6
  9. Comparative Oncology: Evaluation of 2-Deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Staging of Dogs with Malignant Tumors vol.10, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127800
  10. Correlation between the Uptake of 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) and the Expression of Proliferation-Associated Antigen Ki-67 in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis vol.10, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129028
  11. Clinicopathologic Features and Molecular Characteristics of Glucose Metabolism Contributing to ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors vol.10, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141413
  12. The predictive value of preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for postoperative recurrence in patients with localized primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour vol.26, pp.12, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4242-5
  13. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs): an insight into clinical practice with review of literature vol.8, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2015-100670
  14. Fractal analysis of contrast-enhanced CT images for preoperative prediction of malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumor vol.43, pp.10, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1526-z
  15. Multiparametric MRI and 18F-FDG PET features for differentiating gastrointestinal stromal tumors from benign gastric subepithelial lesions vol.30, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06534-9
  16. Metabolic behavior and prognostic role of pretreatment 18F‐FDG PET/CT in gist vol.16, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13366
  17. Case report of portal hepatic schwannoma: presentation of multimodality images vol.21, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-021-01767-9