Technology Assessment: Report on the Relative Efficacy of Oral Cancer Therapy for Medicare Beneficiaries Versus Currently Covered Therapy, Part 2. Imatinib for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs). Table 9

You Are Here: AHRQ Home > Clinical Information > Technology Assessments > Report on the Relative Efficacy of Oral Cancer Therapy for Medicare Beneficiaries Versus Currently Covered Therapy

Table 9. Radiological Predictors of Disease Response or Survival

Characteristic	Factor	Studies Indicating an Association and Quality	Strength of Association with Tumor Response
PET	Evidence of response on Day 8 PET	Stroobants, et al., 2003 quality = 4/6)⁶¹	1 year PFS: Positive evidence of response on PET at 8 days PFS = 92%, No response to PET at 8 days PFS = 12%, p = 0.00107
PET vs CT (RECIST)	Differential ability to predict response to imatinib (by month of assessment)	Antoch, et al., 2004 (quality = 5/5)⁶²	PET 1 mo 85% 3 mo 100% 6 mo 100% CT 1 mo 44% 3 mo 60% 6 mo 57% Combined PET/CT 1 mo 95% 3 mo 100% 6 mo 100% Side-by-side PET and CT 1 mo 90% 3 mo 100% 6 mo 100%
	Performance of F-FDG PET and CT in staging GISTS	Gayed, et al., 2004 (quality = 1/5)⁶³	Sensitivity: CT 93% PET 86% p = 0.27 Positive predictive value: CT 100% PET 98% p = 0.25
Angio-echography with BR-1 contrast vs. CT (RECIST)	Ability to predict clinical outcome and therapeutic effect of imatinib	De Giorgi et al., 2004 (abstract)⁶⁴	Documented tumor response: CT = 46% Angio-echography = 82%
Ultrasound with perfusion software and contrast injection vs. CT	Ability to predict clinical outcome and therapeutic effect of imatinib	Lassau, et al., 2004 (abstract)⁶⁵	No significant difference between CT and ultrasound's ability to document response

Abbreviations: PET = FDG positive emission tomography; CT = computed tomography; TTP = time to progression; OS = overall survival; EFS = event free survival; HR = hazard ratio; RECIST = RECIST response criteria—go to Table 2; NS = not significant

Return to Document