4.3 Article

Correlation between KRAS mutation and 18F-FDG uptake in stage IV colorectal cancer

期刊

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 1621-1626

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1054-2

关键词

F-18-FDG PET/CT; Metastatic colorectal cancer; KRAS

资金

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A110853]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [A110853] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the correlation between KRAS mutation, F-18-FDG uptake, and metastatic pattern in advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Methods: Medical records of stage IV CRC patients who underwent F-18-FDG PET/CT for staging and KRAS mutation analysis were selected. On PET scans, a volume of interest (VOI) was drawn on the primary lesion. F-18-FDG indices (SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, TLG) of the primary lesions were obtained and correlated with KRAS mutation of the primary lesion. Also, metastatic sites were recorded. Association between metastatic pattern and KRAS expression and FDG indices were analyzed. Results: KRAS mutation was positive in 40 (43%) patients. Evaluation of FDG indices showed that higher SUVmax (14.0 vs. 11.2, p = 0.004), higher SUVmean (5.3 vs. 4.7, p = 0.005), and higher TLG (301.4 vs. 205.5, p = 0.023) were predictive of KRAS mutation compared to wild-type (WT) KRAS. Lung metastasis was more frequently involved in patients with KRAS mutation (50.0% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.006), and liver metastasis was more frequently involved in patients with WT KRAS (81.1% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis showed that primary tumor location (OR 3.92, p = 0.07) and KRAS mutation (OR 2.45, p = 0.09) were significant factors in lung metastasis model. Conclusion: KRAS mutation patients had more frequent lung metastasis and had higher F-18-FDG uptake compared to WT KRAS in stage IV CRC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据