2017
DOI: 10.5582/bst.2016.01205
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Role of the pretreatment <sup>18</sup>F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value in predicting outcomes of colon liver metastases and that value's association with Beclin-1 expression

Abstract: The current study sought to evaluate the predictive and prognostic performance of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max) prior to treatment in 43 patients with colon cancer and unresectable liver metastases. Patients with colon cancer who underwent 18 F-FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) scans for staging before the start of first-line 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Expression of Beclin-1 in cancer cells was evaluated in primary tumors using immunohistochemical staining… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 34 publications
(47 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The resulting HR, though statistically significant, was only 1.17, while it was 1.81 in our study (Table 1). By contrast, SUVmax was evaluated for both OS and PFS by Dimitrova et al [29] in a study of 43 patients with colon cancer and unresectable liver metastases. SUVmax was not able to predict PFS, though it predicted OS with HR value of 2.05 (while it was 1.48 in our study).…”
Section: Conventional Measures Vs Volumetric and Heterogeneity Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resulting HR, though statistically significant, was only 1.17, while it was 1.81 in our study (Table 1). By contrast, SUVmax was evaluated for both OS and PFS by Dimitrova et al [29] in a study of 43 patients with colon cancer and unresectable liver metastases. SUVmax was not able to predict PFS, though it predicted OS with HR value of 2.05 (while it was 1.48 in our study).…”
Section: Conventional Measures Vs Volumetric and Heterogeneity Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%