Table 5.

Effect of immune and metabolic markers on pathologic response (in the presence of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

	Author	Total sample size	n pGR (TRG1–2)a	n pPR (TRG3–5)a	Correlation clinical biomarkers with pathologic tumor response	p-Value
ΔSUVmax
	Fang et al., 201732 b	20	14	6	ΔSUVmax was not correlated with pCR on interim and post-CRT scan	0.508; 1.00
	Kukar et al., 201534 c	77	22	55	ΔSUVmax was higher in pGR	0.03
	Arnett et al., 201635 d	193	NM	NM	ΔSUVmax was not correlated with pCR	0.25
	Lee et al., 202138 e	158	44	114	ΔSUVmax did not differ between pCR and pPR	0.201
	Van Rossum et al., 201740 d	70	27	43	Higher ΔSUVmax was significantly related to a good response	0.01
	Li et al., 202121 d	127	57 (TRG1)	70 (TRG2–5)	ΔSUVmax was an independent predictor for pCR	0.002
% reduction in SUVmax
	Kukar et al., 201534 c	77	22	55	% reduction SUVmax was higher in pGR	0.03
	Lee et al., 202138 e	158	44	114	% reduction SUVmax did not differ between pCR and pPR	0.071
	Piessen et al., 201339 b	60	21	25	No significant difference in % reduction SUVmax between pGR and pPR	0.310
	Dewan et al., 201737 d	70	24 (TRG1)	46 (TRG2–5)	% reduction SUVmax of 72.32% predicts pCR (sensitivity 70.8%, specificity 67.4%)	0.011
TLG
	Choi et al., 202136 d	275	75 (TRG1)	200 (TRG2–5)	Higher pre-CRT TLG (> 205.67) was associated with a lower probability of pCR	0.0318
	Van Rossum et al., 201740 d	70	27	43	Higher post-TLG was associated with a higher chance of pPR	0.01
MTV
	Fang et al., 201732 b	20	14	6	MTV was not correlated with pCR on interim and post-CRT scan	0.198; 0.6
	Gillham et al., 200633 c	32	9	23	No correlation between MTV and TRG	0.472
	Choi et al., 202136 d	275	75 (TRG1)	200 (TRG2–5)	Higher post-MTV (> 4.99) was associated with a low probability of pCR	0.0005
	Van Rossum et al., 201740 d	70	27	43	Higher post-MTV was associated with a higher chance of pPR	0.01
ΔSUVmean
	Fang et al., 201732 b	20	14	6	No correlation between ΔSUVmean and TRG on interim and post-CRT scan	0.424; 0.704
	Gillham et al., 200633 c	32	9	23	No correlation between ΔSUVmean and TRG	0.645
	Kukar et al., 201534 c	77	22	55	ΔSUVmean was higher in pGR	0.03
ΔSUVratio
	Li et al., 202121 d	127	57 (TRG1)	70 (TRG2–5)	ΔSUVratio was an independent predictor for pCR	0.007
Obesity
	Wang et al., 201022 d	405	85 (TRG1)	121 (TRG2–5)	BMI is not a significant predictor for pCR	0.9879

Bold values indicate the significant values (p < 0.05)

^a In case studies that made different divisions in pathologic responders, the numbers and specific tumor regression grade were indicated in the table

^b Mann–Whitney test

^c Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Kruskal–Wallis

^d Logistic regression

^e Student’s t-test

^18F-FDG-PET/CT F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, pGR pathologic good responders, pPR pathologic poor responders, TRG tumor regression grade according to Mandard, SUV_max maximum standardized uptake value, SUV_mean mean standardized uptake value, TLG total lesion glycolysis, MTV metabolic tumor volume, SUVratio standardized uptake value ratio, NM not mentioned, pCR pathologic complete response, BMI body mass index