Response rate and diagnostic accuracy of early PET‐CT during neo‐adjuvant therapies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Foley, Kieran G., Jeffries, Jacqueline, Hannon, Clare, Coles, Bernadette, Bradley, Kevin M. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1911-3382 and Smyth, Elizabeth 2021. Response rate and diagnostic accuracy of early PET‐CT during neo‐adjuvant therapies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Clinical Practice 75 (6) , e13906. 10.1111/ijcp.13906

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Purpose Only 25% of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) patients have a pathological response to neo‐adjuvant therapy (NAT) before oesophagectomy. Early response assessment using PET imaging may help guide management of these patients. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesise the evidence detailing response rate and diagnostic accuracy of early PET‐CT assessment. Methods We systematically searched several databases including MEDLINE and Embase. Studies with mixed cohorts of histology, tumour location and a repeat PET‐CT assessment after more than one cycle of NAT were excluded. Reference standard was pathological response defined by Becker or Mandard classifications. Primary outcome was metabolic response rate after one cycle of NAT defined by a reduction in maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of 35%. Secondary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of treatment response prediction, defined as the sensitivity and specificity of early PET‐CT using this threshold. Quality of evidence was also assessed. Random‐effects meta‐analysis pooled response rates and diagnostic accuracy. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019147034). Results Overall, 1341 articles were screened, and 6 studies were eligible for analysis. These studies reported data for 518 patients (aged 27‐78 years; 452 [87.3%] were men) between 2005 and 2020. Pooled sensitivity of early metabolic response to predict pathological response was 77.2% (95% CI 53.2%‐100%). Significant heterogeneity existed between studies (I2 = 80.6% (95% CI 38.9%‐93.8%), P = .006). Pooled specificity was 75.0% (95% CI 68.2%‐82.5%), however, no significant heterogeneity between studies existed (I2 = 0.0% (95% CI 0.0%‐67.4%), P = .73). Conclusion High‐quality evidence is lacking, and few studies met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. The sensitivity of PET using a SUVmax reduction threshold of 35% was suboptimal and varied widely. However, specificity was consistent across studies with a pooled value of 75.0%, suggesting early PET assessment is a better predictor of treatment resistance than of pathological response. Further research is required to define optimal PET‐guided treatment decisions in OAC.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Publisher:	Wiley
ISSN:	1368-5031
Date of Acceptance:	3 December 2020
Last Modified:	09 Nov 2022 10:19
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/139092

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item