Dataset Information

2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT is a better predictor of survival than conventional CT: a prospective study of response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare CE-CT and 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary objective was to predict progression-free and disease-specific survival for responders vs. non-responders on CE-CT and 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT. The secondary objective was to assess agreement between response categorization for the two modalities. Treatment response in women with MBC was monitored prospectively by simultaneous CE-CT and 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT, allowing participants to serve as their own controls. The standardized response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1) and PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) were used for response categorization. For prediction of progression-free and disease-specific survival, treatment response was dichotomized into responders (partial and complete response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease) at the first follow-up scan. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from baseline until disease progression or death from any cause. Disease-specific survival was defined as the time from baseline until breast cancer-specific death. Agreement between response categorization for both modalities was analyzed for all response categories and responders vs. non-responders. At the first follow-up, tumor response was reported more often by 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, with only fair agreement on response categorization between the two modalities (weighted Kappa 0.28). Two-year progression-free survival for responders vs. non-responders by CE-CT was 54.2% vs. 46.0%, compared with 59.1% vs. 14.3% by 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT. Correspondingly, 2-year disease-specific survival were 83.3% vs. 77.8% for CE-CT and 84.6% vs. 61.9% for 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT. Tumor response on 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT was significantly associated with progression-free (HR: 3.49, P < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (HR 2.35, P = 0.008), while no association was found for tumor response on CE-CT. In conclusion, 2-[¹⁸F]FDG-PET/CT appears a better predictor of progression-free and disease-specific survival than CE-CT when used to monitor metastatic breast cancer. In addition, we found low concordance between response categorization between the two modalities.

Trial registration

Clinical.

Trials

gov. NCT03358589. Registered 30/11/2017-Retrospectively registered, http://www.

Clinicaltrials

gov.

SUBMITTER: Vogsen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10076261 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a better predictor of survival than conventional CT: a prospective study of response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

Vogsen Marianne M Naghavi-Behzad Mohammad M Harbo Frederik Graae FG Jakobsen Nick Møldrup NM Gerke Oke O Asmussen Jon Thor JT Nissen Henriette Juel HJ Dahlsgaard-Wallenius Sara Elisabeth SE Braad Poul-Erik PE Jensen Jeanette Dupont JD Ewertz Marianne M Hildebrandt Malene Grubbe MG

Scientific reports 20230405 1

This study aimed to compare CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary objective was to predict progression-free and disease-specific survival for responders vs. non-responders on CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. The secondary objective was to assess agreement between response categorization for the two modalities. Treatment response in women with MBC was monitored prospectively by simultaneous CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG ...[more]

PMID: 37019987

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study aimed to compare contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and 18F-FDG PET/CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer using the standardized response evaluation criteria RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST. The objective was to examine whether progressive disease was detected systematically earlier by one of the modalities. Methods: Women with biopsy-verified metastatic breast cancer were enrolled prospectively and monitored using combined CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT every 9-12 wk to evaluate response to first-line treatment. CE-CT scans and RECIST 1.1 were used for clinical decision-making without accessing the 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. At study completion, 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were unmasked and assessed according to PERCIST. Visual assessment was used if response criteria could not be applied. The modality-specific time to progression was defined as the time from the baseline scan until the first scan demonstrating progression. Paired comparative analyses for CE-CT versus 18F-FDG PET/CT were applied, and the primary endpoint was earlier detection of progression by one modality. Secondary endpoints were time to detection of progression, response categorization, visualization of changes in response over time, and measurable disease according to RECIST and PERCIST. Results: In total, 87 women were evaluable, with a median of 6 (1-11) follow-up scans. Progression was detected first by 18F-FDG PET/CT in 43 (49.4%) of 87 patients and first by CE-CT in 1 (1.15%) of 87 patients (P < 0.0001). Excluding patients without progression (n = 32), progression was seen first on 18F-FDG PET/CT in 78.2% (43/55) of patients. The median time from detection of progression by 18F-FDG PET/CT to that of CE-CT was 6 mo (95% CI, 4.3-6.4 mo). At baseline, 76 (87.4%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST and 51 (58.6%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1. Moreover, 18F-FDG PET/CT provided improved visualization of changes in response over time, as seen in the graphical abstract. Conclusion: Disease progression was detected earlier by 18F-FDG PET/CT than by CE-CT in most patients, with a potentially clinically relevant median 6-mo delay for CE-CT. More patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST than according to RECIST 1.1. The magnitude of the final benefit for patients is a perspective for future research.

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now commonly used to treat patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Although concerns have been raised that the inflammatory response induced by ICIs may limit the ability of 18F-FDG PET/CT to assess tumor response, systematic analyses on the use of 18F-FDG PET/CT in this setting are mostly lacking. Thus, we set out to evaluate the association between tumor response on 18F-FDG PET/CT and prognosis in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma treated with ipilimumab. Methods: We analyzed 60 consecutive patients with metastatic melanoma who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT scans both before and after treatment to evaluate treatment response after completion of ipilimumab therapy. Tumor response was assessed by the change in the sum of SULpeak (voxels with the highest average SUL [SUV normalized to lean body mass]) of up to 5 lesions according to PERCIST5. New lesions on PET that appeared suggestive of metastases were considered progressive metabolic disease (PMD). Because immunotherapy may cause new inflammatory lesions that are detectable on 18F-FDG PET/CT, we also evaluated an immunotherapy-modified response classification (imPERCIST5). In this classification, new lesions do not define PMD per se; rather, PMD requires an increase in the sum of SULpeak by 30%. The correlation between tumor response according to these 3 definitions and overall survival (OS) was evaluated and compared with known prognostic factors. Results: In responders and nonresponders, the 2-y OS was 66% versus 29% for imPERCIST5 (P = 0.003). After multivariate analysis, imPERCIST5 remained prognostic (hazard ratio, 3.853; 95% confidence interval, 1.498-9.911; P = 0.005). New sites of focal 18F-FDG uptake occurred more often in patients with PMD (n = 24) by imPERCIST5 than in those with stable metabolic disease (n = 7) or partial metabolic response (n = 4). In patients with partial metabolic response, 2 of 4 isolated new lesions regressed spontaneously during follow-up. Conclusion: In patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab, tumor response according to PERCIST was associated with OS. Our data suggest that PMD should not be defined by the appearance of new lesions, but rather by an increase in the sum of SULpeak.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed and compared image quality obtained with clinical 18F-FDG whole-body oncologic PET protocols used in three different, state-of-the-art digital PET/CT and two conventional PMT-based PET/CT devices. Our goal was to evaluate an improved trade-off between administered activity (patient dose exposure/signal-to-noise ratio) and acquisition time (patient comfort) while preserving diagnostic information achievable with the recently introduced digital detector technology compared to previous analogue PET technology.MethodsWe performed list-mode (LM) PET acquisitions using a NEMA/IEC NU2 phantom, with activity concentrations of 5 kBq/mL and 25 kBq/mL for the background (9.5 L) and sphere inserts, respectively. For each device, reconstructions were obtained varying the image statistics (10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 300 s from LM data) and the number of iterations (range 1 to 10) in addition to the employed local clinical protocol setup. We measured for each reconstructed dataset: the quantitative cross-calibration, the image noise on the uniform background assessed by the coefficient of variation (COV), and the recovery coefficients (RCs) evaluated in the hot spheres. Additionally, we compared the characteristic time-activity-product (TAP) that is the product of scan time per bed position × mass-activity administered (in min·MBq/kg) across datasets.ResultsGood system cross-calibration was obtained for all tested datasets with < 6% deviation from the expected value was observed. For all clinical protocol settings, image noise was compatible with clinical interpretation (COV < 15%). Digital PET showed an improved background signal-to-noise ratio as compared to conventional PMT-based PET. RCs were comparable between digital and PMT-based PET datasets. Compared to PMT-based PET, digital systems provided comparable image quality with lower TAP (from ~ 40% less and up to 70% less).ConclusionsThis study compared the achievable clinical image quality in three state-of-the-art digital PET/CT devices (from different vendors) as well as in two conventional PMT-based PET. Reported results show that a comparable image quality is achievable with a TAP reduction of ~ 40% in digital PET. This could lead to a significant reduction of the administered mass-activity and/or scan time with direct benefits in terms of dose exposure and patient comfort.

Project description:Knowledge of the within-subject variability of 18F-FDG PET/MRI measurements is necessary for proper interpretation of quantitative PET or MRI metrics in the context of therapeutic efficacy assessments with integrated PET/MRI scanners. The goal of this study was to determine the test-retest repeatability of these metrics on PET/MRI, with comparison to similar metrics acquired by PET/CT. Methods: This prospective study enrolled subjects with pathology-proven pelvic malignancies. Baseline imaging consisted of PET/CT immediately followed by PET/MRI, using a single 370-MBq 18F-FDG dose. Repeat imaging was performed within 7 d using an identical imaging protocol, with no oncologic therapy between sessions. PET imaging on both scanners consisted of a list-mode acquisition at a single pelvic station. The MRI consisted of 2-point Dixon imaging for attenuation correction, standard sequences for anatomic correlation, and diffusion-weighted imaging. PET data were statically reconstructed using various frame durations and minimizing uptake time differences between sessions. SUV metrics were extracted for both PET/CT and PET/MRI in each imaging session. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics were extracted for both PET/MRI sessions. Results: The study cohort consisted of 14 subjects (13 female, 1 male) with various pelvic cancers (11 cervical, 2 rectal, 1 endometrial). For SUVmax, the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) appeared higher for PET/CT (8.5%-12.8%) than PET/MRI (6.6%-8.7%) across all PET reconstructions, though with no significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.08) between modalities. For lean body mass-adjusted SUVpeak, the wCVs appeared similar for PET/CT (9.9%-11.5%) and PET/MRI (9.2%-11.3%) across all PET reconstructions, again with no significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.14) between modalities. For PET/MRI, the wCV for ADCmedian of 3.5% appeared lower than the wCVs for SUVmax (6.6%-8.7%) and SULpeak (9.2%-11.3%), though without significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.23). Conclusion: For solid tumors of the pelvis, the repeatability of the evaluated SUV and ADC metrics on 18F-FDG PET/MRI is both acceptably high and similar to previously published values for 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI, supporting the use of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for quantitative oncologic treatment response assessments.

Project description:BackgroundMetastatic melanoma patients can have durable responses to systemic therapy and even long-term survival. However, a large subgroup of patients does not benefit. Tumour metabolic alterations may well be involved in the efficacy of both targeted and immunotherapy. Knowledge on in vivo tumour glucose uptake and its heterogeneity in metastatic melanoma may aid in upfront patient selection for novel (concomitant) metabolically targeted therapies. The aim of this retrospective study was to provide insight into quantitative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) parameters and corresponding intra- and inter-patient heterogeneity in tumour 18F-FDG uptake among metastatic melanoma patients. Consecutive, newly diagnosed stage IV melanoma patients with a baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT scan performed between May 2014 and December 2015 and scheduled to start first-line systemic treatment were included. Volume of interests (VOIs) of all visible tumour lesions were delineated using a gradient-based contour method, and standardized uptake values (SUVs), metabolically active tumour volume (MATV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were determined on a per-lesion and per-patient basis. Differences in quantitative PET parameters were explored between patient categories stratified by BRAFV600 and RAS mutational status, baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels and tumour programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.ResultsIn 64 patients, 1143 lesions ≥ 1 ml were delineated. Median number of lesions ≥ 1 ml was 6 (range 0-168), median maximum SUVpeak 9.5 (range 0-58), median total MATV 29 ml (range 0-2212) and median total TLG 209 (range 0-16,740). Per-patient analysis revealed considerable intra- and inter-patient heterogeneity. Maximum SUVs, MATV, number of lesions and TLG per patient did not differ when stratifying between BRAFV600 or RAS mutational status or PD-L1 expression status, but were higher in the patient group with elevated LDH levels (> 250 U/l) compared to the group with normal LDH levels (P < 0.001). A subset of patients with normal LDH levels also showed above median tumour 18F-FDG uptake.ConclusionsBaseline tumour 18F-FDG uptake in stage IV melanoma is heterogeneous, independent of mutational status and cannot be fully explained by LDH levels. Further investigation of the prognostic and predictive value of quantitative 18F-FDG PET parameters is of interest.

Project description:Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) demonstrates lower conspicuity on 18F-FDG PET than the more common invasive ductal carcinoma. Other molecular imaging methods may be needed for evaluation of this malignancy. As ILC is nearly always (95%) estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ER-targeting PET tracers such as 16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) may have value. We reviewed prospective trials at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center using 18F-FES PET/CT to evaluate metastatic ILC patients with synchronous 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT imaging, which allowed a head-to-head comparison of these 2 PET tracers. Methods: Six prospective clinical trials using 18F-FES PET/CT in patients with metastatic breast cancer were performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2008 to 2019. These trials included 92 patients, of whom 14 (15%) were of ILC histology. Seven of 14 patients with ILC had 18F-FDG PET/CT performed within 5 wk of the research 18F-FES PET/CT and no intervening change in management. For these 7 patients, the 18F-FES and 18F-FDG PET/CT studies were analyzed to determine the total number of tracer-avid lesions, organ systems of involvement, and SUVmax of each organ system for both tracers. Results: In the 7 comparable pairs of scans, there were a total of 254 18F-FES-avid lesions (SUVmax, 2.6-17.9) and 111 18F-FDG-avid lesions (SUVmax, 3.3-9.9) suggestive of malignancy. For 5 of 7 (71%) ILC patients, 18F-FES PET/CT detected more metastatic lesions than 18F-FDG PET/CT. In the same 5 of 7 patients, the SUVmax of 18F-FES-avid lesions was greater than the SUVmax of 18F-FDG-avid lesions. One patient had 18F-FES-avid metastases with no corresponding 18F-FDG-avid metastases. There were no patients with 18F-FDG-avid distant metastases without 18F-FES-avid distant metastases, although in one patient liver metastases were evident on 18F-FDG but not on 18F-FES PET. Conclusion: 18F-FES PET/CT compared favorably with 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of metastases in patients with metastatic ILC. Larger prospective trials of 18F-FES PET/CT in ILC should be considered to evaluate ER-targeted imaging for clinical value in patients with this histology of breast cancer.