Correlations Study Between 18 F-FDG PET/CT Metabolic Parameters Predicting Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation Status and Prognosis in Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Bin Yang,Qing Gen Wang,Mengjie Lu,Yingqian Ge,Yu Jun Zheng,Hong Zhu,Guangming Lu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00589
IF: 4.7
2019-01-01
Frontiers in Oncology
Abstract:Purpose: This study assessed the ability of metabolic parameters from (18)Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-18-FDG PET/CT) and clinicopathological data to predict epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression/mutation status in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and to develop a prognostic model based on differences in EGFR expression status, to enable individualized targeted molecular therapy. Patients and Methods: Metabolic parameters and clinicopathological data from 200 patients diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma between July 2009 and November 2016, who underwent F-18-FDG PET/CT and EGFR mutation testing, were retrospectively evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression was applied to significant variables to establish a prediction model for EGFR mutation status. Overall survival for both mutant and wild-type EGFR was analyzed to establish a multifactor Cox regression model. Results: Of the 200 patients, 115 (58%) exhibited EGFR mutations and 85 (42%) were wild-type. Among selected metabolic parameters, metabolic tumor volume (MTV) demonstrated a significant difference between wild-type and mutant EGFR mutation status, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.60, which increased to 0.70 after clinical data (smoking status) were combined. Survival analysis of wild-type and mutant EGFR yielded mean survival times of 34.451 (95% CI 28.654-40.249) and 53.714 (95% CI 44.331-63.098) months, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression revealed that mutation type, tumor stage, and thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1) expression status were the main factors influencing patient prognosis. The hazard ratio for mutant EGFR was 0.511 (95% CI 0.303-0.862) times that of wild-type, and the risk of death was lower for mutant EGFR than for wild-type. The risk of death was lower in TTF-1-positive than in TTF-1-negative patients. Conclusion: F-18-FDG PET/CTmetabolic parameters combined with clinicopathological data demonstrated moderate diagnostic efficacy in predicting EGFR mutation status and were associated with prognosis inmutant and wild-type EGFR non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thus providing a reference for individualized targeted molecular therapy.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?