Evaluation of metabolic parameters of microsatellites stable and instable colorectal cancer patients via PET/CT

Abstract

Aims: Microsatellite instability has been determined as an important indicator in selecting chemotherapy drugs in colorectal cancer. Within the scope of this research, we aimed to elucidate the pathology reports and determine whether the metabolic parameters detected by PET/CT differ in MSI-positive and negative patients. Methods: A total of 35 patients were analyzed retrospectively. The patient population consisted of patients who applied to the Nuclear Medicine Department with a diagnosis of colon or rectum cancer, underwent PET/CT imaging for staging purposes, and were operated on. Results: A total of 35 colon or rectum cancer patients were included in this retrospective analysis. When microsatellite instability was analyzed among the patients, it was found that female patients comprised 4 microsatellite instability-positive and 16 microsatellite instability-negative individuals. On the other hand, 5 of the males were microsatellite instability positive, and 10 were microsatellite instability negative. The mean SUVmax value was 16.4±8.2, SUVmean was 8.1±1.9, TLG was 392.4±520.8, and MTV was 26.5±25.4 in the microsatellite instability-positive individuals. On the other hand, the mean SUVmax value was 22.7±9.7, SUVmean was 5.2±2.2, TLG was 316.4±325.7, and MTV was 21.7±21.7 in the microsatellite instability-negative individuals. Conclusion: With the advancement of image analysis technology, MTV, and TLG, volumetric indexes derived from 18F-FDG PET have been proposed for risk stratification of cancer patients. Regarding the outcomes of this research, the semiquantitative and metabolic parameters obtained by PET/CT are not different in colorectal cancer cases with instable and stable microsatellites.

Keywords

• Colorectal cancer
• microsatellite instability
• Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT)
• mismatch repair genes (MMR)
• standardized uptake value (SUV)

Kolorektal kanserde mikrosatellit stabil ve instabil hastaların PET/CT metabolik parametreleri arasındaki farkın değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

ÖZET Amaç: Mikrosatellit instabilitesi kolorektal kanserde kemoterapi ilaçlarının seçiminde önemli bir gösterge olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu araştırma kapsamında MSI pozitif ve negatif hastalarda patoloji raporlarının aydınlatılması ve PET/BT ile tespit edilen metabolik parametrelerin farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin belirlenmesi amaçlandı. Yöntem: Toplam 35 hasta retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hasta popülasyonunu Nükleer Tıp Anabilim Dalı'na kolon veya rektum kanseri tanısıyla başvuran, evreleme amacıyla PET/BT görüntülemesi yapılan ve ameliyat edilen hastalardan oluştu. Bulgular: Bu retrospektif analize toplam 35 kolon veya rektum kanseri hastası dahil edildi. Hastalar arasında mikrosatellit instabilitesi incelendiğinde, kadın hastaların 4'ünün mikrosatellit instabilitesi pozitif, 16'sının ise mikrosatellit instabilitesi negatif bireyden oluştuğu görüldü. Öte yandan erkeklerin 5'i mikro uydu kararsızlığı pozitif, 10'u ise mikro uydu kararsızlığı negatifti. Mikrosatellit instabilitesi pozitif olan bireylerde ortalama SUVmax değeri 16,4±8,2, SUVort değeri 8,1±1,9, TLG 392,4±520,8 ve MTV 26,5±25,4 olarak belirlendi. Mikrosatellit instabilitesi negatif olan bireylerde ise ortalama SUVmax değeri 22,7±9,7, SUVmean değeri 5,2±2,2, TLG 316,4±325,7 ve MTV 21,7±21,7 olarak belirlendi. Sonuç: Görüntüleme analiz teknolojisinin, MTV ve TLG'nin gelişmesiyle birlikte, kanser hastalarının risk sınıflandırması için 18F-FDG PET'ten türetilen hacimsel indeksler önerilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, instabil ve stabil mikrosatellitlere sahip kolorektal kanser vakalarında PET/BT ile elde edilen yarı kantitatif ve metabolik parametreler farklı değildir.

Keywords

• Kolorektal kanser
• mikrosatellit instabilitesi
• Pozitron Emisyon Tomografisi/Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (PET/CT)
• uyumsuzluk onarım genleri (MMR)
• standartlaştırılmış alım değeri (SUV)

References

1. 1. Ionescu VA, Gheorghe G, Bacalbasa N, Chiotoroiu AL, Diaconu C. Colorectal cancer: from risk factors to oncogenesis. Medicina. 2023;59(9):1646. doi: 10.3390/medicina59091646
2. 2. Ros J, Baraibar I, Saoudi N, et al. Immunotherapy for colorectal cancer with high microsatellite instability: the ongoing search for biomarkers. Cancers. 2023;15(17):4245. doi: 10.3390/cancers15174245
3. 3. Greco L, Rubbino F, Dal Buono A, Laghi L. Microsatellite instability and ımmune response: from microenvironment features to therapeutic actionability-lessons from colorectal cancer. Genes. 2023;14(6):1169. doi: 10.3390/genes14061169
4. 4. Dasanu CA, Alani M, Habibi S, Codreanu I. Immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced colorectal cancer with inherited and acquired microsatellite instability: current state and future directions. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2023:10781552231178293. doi: 10.1177/10781552231178293
5. 5. Zhang L, Lu X, Xu Y, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages confer colorectal cancer 5-fluorouracil resistance by promoting MRP1 membrane translocation via an intercellular CXCL17/CXCL22-CCR4-ATF6-GRP78 axis. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14(9):582. doi: 10.1038/s41419-023-06108-0
6. 6. Zhu J, Lian J, Xu B, et al. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for colorectal cancer: right regimens, right patients, right directions? Front Immunol. 2023;14:1120684. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1120684
7. 7. Rasilla JM. 18F-FDG PET-CT in colorectal cancer. Where are we going? Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2023;42(3):137-138. doi: 10.1016/j.remnie.2023.04.006
8. 8. Cha J, Kim H, Shin HJ, et al. Does high [18F]FDG uptake always mean poor prognosis? Colon cancer with high-level microsatellite instability is associated with high [18F]FDG uptake on PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2023;33(11):7450-7460. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09832-5

9. 9. Song J, Li Z, Yang L, Wei M, Yang Z, Wang X. Metabolic activity via 18F-FDG PET/CT is predictive of microsatellite instability status in colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):808. doi: 10.1186/ s12885-022-09871-z
10. 10. Zhang L, Liu Y, Ding Y, et al. Predictive value of intratumoral-metabolic heterogeneity derived from 18F-FDG PET/CT in distinguishing microsatellite instability status of colorectal carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1065744. doi: 10.3389/fonc. 2023.1065744
11. 11. Li J, Yang Z, Xin B, et al. Quantitative prediction of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer with preoperative PET/CT-based radiomics. Front Oncol. 2021;11:702055. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.702055
12. 12. Kuhlman TE. Repetitive DNA regulates gene expression. Science. 2023;381(6664):1289-1290. doi: 10.1126/science.adk2055
13. 13. Desir AD, Ali FG. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: the evolving role of immunotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2023;66(10):1303-1307. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003017
14. 14. Mei WJ, Mi M, Qian J, Xiao N, Yuan Y, Ding PR. Clinicopathological characteristics of high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer: a narrative review. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1019582. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1019582
15. 15. Maratt JK, Stoffel E. Identification of Lynch syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2022;32(1):45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2021.09.002
16. 16. Smyrk TC, Watson P, Kaul K, Lynch HT. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are a marker for microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;91(12):2417-2422.
17. 17. Kim ST, Cristescu R, Bass AJ, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clinical responses to PD-1 inhibition in metastatic gastric cancer. Nat Med. 2018;24(9):1449-1458. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0101-z
18. 18. Nolano A, Medugno A, Trombetti S, et al. Hereditary colorectal cancer: state of the art in Lynch syndrome. Cancers. 2022;15(1):75. doi: 10.3390/cancers15010075
19. 19. Cortes-Ciriano I, Lee S, Park WY, Kim TM, Park PJ. A molecular portrait of microsatellite instability across multiple cancers. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):15180. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15180
20. 20. Evrard C, Tachon G, Randrian V, Karayan-Tapon L, Tougeron D. Microsatellite instability: diagnosis, heterogeneity, discordance, and clinical ımpact in colorectal cancer. Cancers. 2019;11(10):1567. doi: 10.3390/cancers11101567
21. 21. Samstein RM, Chan TA. Dissecting microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: one size does not fit all. Genome Med. 2017;9(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s13073-017-0438-9
22. 22. Kleiner S, Weber W. Importance of FDG-PET/computed tomography in colorectal cancer. Radiologe. 2019;59(9):812-819. doi: 10.1007/s00117-019-00584-2
23. 23. Chung HW, Lee SY, Han HS, et al. Gastric cancers with microsatellite instability exhibit high fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography. Gastric Cancer. 2013;16(2):185-192. doi: 10.1007/s10120-012-0165-2
24. 24. Liu H, Ye Z, Yang T, et al. Predictive value of metabolic parameters derived from 18F-FDG PET/CT for microsatellite instability in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Front Immunol. 2021;12:724464. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.724464
25. 25. Jenkins MA, Hayashi S, O’Shea AM, et al. Pathology features in Bethesda guidelines predict colorectal cancer microsatellite instability: a population-based study. Gastroenterol. 2007;133(1):48-56. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.04.044
26. 26. Jiang H, Zhang R, Jiang H, et al. Retrospective analysis of the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression and 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters in colorectal cancer. J Cancer. 2020;11(10):2864-2873. doi: 10.7150/jca.38689
27. 27. Wu J, Lv Y, Wang N, et al. The value of single-source dual-energy CT imaging for discriminating microsatellite instability from microsatellite stability human colorectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(7):3782-3790. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06144-5