Difüz Tip Gastrik Kanserlerin 18F-FDG PET/CT ve Klinikopatolojik Verilerinin İncelenmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 24 Issue: 1, 102 - 109, 30.04.2022

Muhammed Gömeç Zekiye Hasbek

https://doi.org/10.24938/kutfd.1014164

Abstract

Amaç: Kansere bağlı ölümlerin önde gelen nedenlerinden biri olan mide kanserinin alt tiplerinden biri de diffüz tip mide kanseridir. Çalışmamızda mide kanseri tanı ve takibinde sıklıkla kullanılan bir görüntüleme yöntemi olan F-18 ile işaretli florodeoksiglukoz Pozitron emisyon tomografisinin, diffüz tip mide kanseri alt tiplerinde sonuçlarının retrospektif olarak araştırılması ve literatür ışığında gözden geçirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya tek merkezde diffüz tip mide kanseri tanısı konulan 44 hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların klinik, patolojik ve Pozitron emisyon tomografi verileri analiz edildi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya alınan hastaların yaş ortalaması 61.93 idi. Hastaların 16’sı (%36.4) kadın, 28’i (%63.5) erkekti. Endoskopik ve cerrahi olarak alınan spesimenlerin histopatolojik sonuçları incelendiğinde, diffüz tip mide kanserli hastalar; 36’sı (%81.8) taşlı yüzük hücreli mide kanseri, 8’i (%18.2) zayıf kohezif tip mide kanseriydi. Hastaların 8’inde (%18.2) düşük florodeoksiglukoz tutulumu görülürken, 36 hastada (%81.8) yüksek tutulumu mevcuttu. Hastaların 19’unda metastaz vardı. SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolik tümör hacmi ve toplam lezyon glikoliz değerleri açısından karşılaştırıldığında, taşlı yüzük hücreli mide kanserleri ile zayıf kohezif tip mide kanserleri arasında ve metastaz varlığı ile yokluğu arasında anlamlı ilişki bulundu (p<0.05).

Sonuç: Diffüz tip mide kanseri hasta serimizde SUVmax değerleri diğer mide kanserli hastalara göre daha düşük olmasına rağmen ileri evre diffüz tip mide kanserlerinde erken evre olgulara göre daha yüksek olduğu gözlendi. Ayrıca diffüz tip mide kanseri alt tipleri olan taşlı yüzük hücreli mide kanserleri ile zayıf kohezif tipi mide kanserleri SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolik tümör hacmi ve toplam lezyon glikoliz değerleri açısından karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı fark saptanmadı ve bu literatürde bulamadığımız bir bilgidir.

Keywords

Diffüz tip, Mide kanseri, Taşlı Yüzük Hücresi, Zayıf kohezif, 18F-FDG PET/CT

Supporting Institution

Yok

INVESTIGATION OF 18F-FDG PET / CT AND CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL DATA OF DIFFUSE TYPE GASTRIC CANCERS

Abstract

Objective: One of the subtypes of stomach cancer, which is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths, is diffuse-type stomach cancer. In our study, it was aimed to retrospectively investigate the results of F-18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, which is an imaging method frequently used in the diagnosis and follow-up of gastric cancer, in diffuse type gastric cancer subtypes and to review patient data in the light of the literatüre

Material and Methods: Forty-four patients diagnosed with diffuse-type gastric cancer in a single center were included in the study. Clinical, pathological and positron emission tomography data of the patients were analyzed.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 61.93. Sixteen (36.4%) of the patients were female, 28 (63.5%) were male. When the histopathological results of specimens obtained by endoscopic and surgical methods are examined, diffuse-type stomach cancer patients; 36 (81.8%) were Signet-Ring Cell, 8 (18.2%) were weak poorly cohesive type gastric cancer. Low F-18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose involvement was observed in 8 (18.2%) patients, while high involvement was observed in 36 (81.8%). Nineteen of the patients had metastases. When SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis values were compared, a significant correlation was found between signet ring cell gastric cancers and weak cohesive type gastric cancers, and between presence and absence of metastasis (p <0.05).

Conclusion: Although SUVmax values were lower in our diffuse type gastric cancer patient series compared to other gastric cancer patients, it was observed that it was higher in advanced diffuse type gastric cancers than in early stage patients. In addition, when the diffuse type gastric cancer subtypes signet-ring cell and weak poorly cohesive type gastric cancers were compared in terms of positron emission tomography results, it was observed that there was no significant difference, and this is an information that is not available in the literature.

Keywords

Diffuse type, Gastric cancer, Poorly cohesive, Signet-Ring Cell, 18F-FDG PET/CT

References

• 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-49.
• 2. Lauren P. The two histological main types of gastric carcinoma: diffuse and so‐called intestinal‐type carcinoma: an attempt at a histo‐clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1965;64(1):31-49.
• 3. Piessen G, Messager M, Leteurtre E, Jean-Pierre T, Mariette C. Signet ring cell histology is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in gastric adenocarcinoma regardless of tumoral clinical presentation. Ann Surg. 2009;250(6):878-87.
• 4. Pernot S, Voron T, Perkins G, Lagorce-Pages C, Berger A, Taieb J. Signet-ring cell carcinoma of the stomach: Impact on prognosis and specific therapeutic challenge. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(40):11428-38.
• 5. Kim J, Lim ST, Na CJ, Han YH, Kim CY, Jeong HJ et al. Pretreatment F-18 FDG PET/CT parameters to evaluate progression-free survival in gastric cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48(1):33-40.
• 6. Wang C, Guo W, Zhou M, Zhu X, Ji D, Li W et al. The predictive and prognostic value of early metabolic response assessed by positron emission tomography in advanced gastric cancer treated with chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(7):1603-10.
• 7. Smyth EC, Verheij M, Allum W, Cunningham D, Cervantes A, Arnold D. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v38-v49.
• 8. Mukai K, Ishida Y, Okajima K, Isozaki H, Morimoto T, Nishiyama S. Usefulness of preoperative FDG-PET for detection of gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2006;9(3):192-6.
• 9. Pak KH, Yun M, Cheong J-H, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Clinical implication of FDG–PET in advanced gastric cancer with signet ring cell histology. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104(6):566-70.
• 10. Van de Wiele C, Kruse V, Smeets P, Sathekge M, Maes A. Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(2):290-301.
• 11. Na SJ, Joo Hyun O, Park JM, Lee HH, Lee SH, Song KY et al. Prognostic value of metabolic parameters on preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with stage III gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(39):63968.
• 12. Chen J, Cai R, Ren G, Zhao J, Li H, Guo C et al. Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and computed tomography findings between signet ring cell carcinoma and nonsignet ring cell carcinoma in early and advanced gastric cancer. Cancer Med. 2018;7(4):1160-9.
• 13. Lauwers G, Carneiro F, Graham D, Curado M, Franceschi S, Montgomery E. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 3rd chapter, 4th ed. Lyon. IARC Publication, 2010:48-58.
• 14. Gu L, Chen M, Guo D, Zhu H, Zhang W, Pan J et al. PD-L1 and gastric cancer prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One. 2017;12(8):e0182692.
• 15. Kwon HR, Pahk K, Park S, Kwon HW, Kim S. Prognostic Value of Metabolic Information in Advanced Gastric Cancer Using Preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;53(6):386-95.
• 16. Liu G, Hu Y, Cheng X, Wang Y, Gu Y, Liu T et al. Volumetric parameters on 18 F-FDG PET/CT predict the survival of patients with gastric cancer associated with their expression status of c-MET. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):1-9.
• 17. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber W, Becker K, Link T, Siewert JR et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(2):288-95.
• 18. Maman A, Sahin A, Ayan AK. The Relationship of SUV Value in PET-CT with Tumor Differentiation and Tumor Markers in Gastric Cancer. Eurasian J Med. 2020;52(1):67-72.
• 19. Alakus H, Batur M, Schmidt M, Drebber U, Baldus SE, Vallböhmer D et al. Variable 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in gastric cancer is associated with different levels of GLUT-1 expression. Nucl Med Commun. 2010;31(6):532-38.
• 20. Park YM, Kim JH, Baik SJ, Park JJ, Youn YH, Park H. Clinical risk assessment for gastric cancer in asymptomatic population after a health check-up: An individualized consideration of the risk factors. Medicine. 2016;95(44):e5351.
• 21. Yang HJ, Kang D, Chang Y, Ahn J, Ryu S, Cho J et al. Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer: a cohort study. Gastric Cancer. 2020;23(3):382-90.