Table 9. Radiological Predictors of Disease Response or Survival

Characteristic

Factor

Studies Indicating an Association and Quality

Strength of Association with Tumor Response

Strength of Association with Survival

PET

Evidence of response on Day 8 PET

Stroobants, et al., 2003
quality = 4/6)61

1 year PFS:  Positive evidence of response on PET at 8 days
PFS = 92%, No response to PET at 8 days
PFS = 12%, p = 0.00107

  

PET vs CT (RECIST)

Differential ability to predict response to imatinib (by month of assessment)

Antoch, et al., 2004
(quality = 5/5)62

PET
 1 mo 85%
 3 mo 100%
 6 mo 100%

CT
 1 mo 44%
 3 mo 60%
 6 mo 57%

Combined PET/CT
 1 mo 95%
 3 mo 100%
 6 mo 100%

Side-by-side PET and CT
 1 mo 90%
 3 mo 100%
 6 mo 100%

  
 

Performance of F-FDG PET and CT in staging GISTS

Gayed, et al., 2004
(quality = 1/5)63

Sensitivity:
 CT 93%
 PET  86%
 p = 0.27

Positive predictive value:
 CT 100%
 PET  98%
 p = 0.25

  

Angio-echography with BR-1 contrast vs. CT (RECIST)

Ability to predict clinical outcome and therapeutic effect of imatinib

De Giorgi et al., 2004
(abstract)64

Documented tumor response:
 CT  = 46%
 Angio-echography = 82% 

 

Ultrasound with perfusion software and contrast injection vs. CT

Ability to predict clinical outcome and therapeutic effect of imatinib

Lassau, et al., 2004 (abstract)65

No significant difference between CT and ultrasound's ability to document response 

 

Abbreviations:  PET = FDG positive emission tomography; CT = computed tomography; TTP = time to progression; OS = overall survival;  EFS = event free survival; HR = hazard ratio; RECIST = RECIST response criteria—go to Table 2; NS = not significant

Return to Document