Evaluating Treatment Response in GEJ Adenocarcinoma: The Role of Pretherapeutic and Posttherapeutic Iodine Mapping.

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy regimens have significantly improved the prognosis of GEJ (gastroesophageal junction) cancer; however, there are a significant percentage of patients who benefit from earlier resection or adapted therapy regimens, and the true response rate can only be determined histopathologically. Methods that allow preoperative assessment of response are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective study is to assess the potential of pretherapeutic and posttherapeutic spectral CT iodine density (IoD) in predicting histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the GEJ.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 62 patients with GEJ carcinoma were studied. Patients received a multiphasic CT scan at diagnosis and preoperatively. Iodine-density maps were generated based on spectral CT data. All tumors were histopathologically analyzed, and the tumor regression grade (TRG) according to Becker et al ( Cancer . 2003;98:1521-1530) was determined. Two experienced radiologists blindly placed 5 defined ROIs in the tumor region of highest density, and the maximum value was used for further analysis. Iodine density was normalized to the aortic iodine uptake. In addition, tumor response was assessed according to standard RECIST measurement. After assessing interrater reliability, the correlation of IoD values with treatment response and with histopathologic TRG was evaluated.

RESULTS

The normalized ΔIoD (IoD at diagnosis - IoD after neoadjuvant treatment) and the normalized IoD after neoadjuvant treatment correlated significantly with the TRG. For the detection of responders and nonresponders, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for normalized ΔIoD yielded the highest area under the curve of 0.95 and achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 92.1%, respectively. Iodine density after neoadjuvant treatment achieved an area under the curve of 0.88 and a sensitivity and specificity of 86.8% and 84.6%, respectively (cutoff, 0.266). Iodine density at diagnosis and RECIST did not provide information to distinguish responders from nonresponders. Using the cutoff value for IoD after neoadjuvant treatment, a reliable classification of responders and nonresponders was achieved for both readers in a test set of 11 patients. Intraclass correlation coefficient revealed excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, >0.9). Lastly, using the cutoff value for normalized ΔIoD as a definition for treatment response, a significantly longer survival of responders was shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in IoD after neoadjuvant treatment of GEJ cancer may be a potential surrogate for therapy response.