Home > Journals > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Past Issues > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2018 June;62(2) > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2018 June;62(2):165-84

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW  IMAGING AND THERAPY RESPONSE EVALUATION 

The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2018 June;62(2):165-84

DOI: 10.23736/S1824-4785.17.03037-0

Copyright © 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Interventional locoregional treatment and metabolic response: advantages of using PET/CT in the evaluation of response to treatment

Monica FINESSI 1, 2 , Marilena BELLÒ 1, Francesca P. GIUNTA 1, Andrea VELTRI 3, Désirée DEANDREIS 1, 2

1 Division of Nuclear Medicine, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; 2 Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; 3 Unit of Radiology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy


PDF


INTRODUCTION: Interventional oncology locoregional therapies are validated treatment modalities for primary and secondary tumors in liver, lung, kidney and bone. At this time, there is no accordance in the choice of imaging modality to assess treatment response. Morphological imaging and RECIST 1.1 criteria based on size variation are limited by several critical points. On the other hand the role of functional imaging, in particular by [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), in both staging and response evaluation of locoregional treatments remains unclear because of the heterogeneous nature of available data. The aim of this paper was to summarize the available literature illustrating the state of art of metabolic evaluation of response after locoregional therapies in the three major organs of interest: liver, lung and bone.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline database was searched for relevant original paper evaluating the role of [18F]-FDG PET in interventional oncology treatment published up to June 2017 excluding case reports.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Finally 41 studies papers evaluating the role of [18F]-FDG PET in both staging and in response evaluation of locoregional treatments focused on liver tumoral lesions (N.=29), on lung lesions (N.=10) and on bone lesions (N.=2) were considered for this review.
CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT appears to perform well in the assessment of response to interventional therapies compared to conventional imaging, not only in terms of response evaluation but also as a possible prognostic tool. Nevertheless further prospective, homogenous studies are required to confirm these data, in particular for lung and bone lesions.


KEY WORDS: Positron emission tomography computed tomography - Therapy - Treatment outcome

top of page