PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, CT, brain MRI, and tumormarker S-100B in chemotherapy response assessment of stage IV melanoma patients. METHODS: In 25 patients with stage IV melanoma, FDG-PET/CT and S-100B after 2-3 months (three cycles) of chemotherapy was compared with baseline PET/CT and baseline S-100B. Retrospectively, the response was correlated with the outcome. In patients with clinical suspicion for brain metastases, MRI or CCT was performed. RESULTS: There was agreement between FDG-PET/CT and CT regarding response to chemotherapy in all patients. There was a clear trend to a longer OS of PET/CT responders (n=10) compared with PET/CT non-responders (n=15; p=0.072) with remarkably better 1-year OS of 80% compared to 40% (p=0.048). There was a significant longer PFS of PET/CT responders compared with PET/CT non-responders (p=0.002). S-100B was normal at baseline in eight of 22 patients where it was available. Chemotherapy response assessment with S-100B failed to show correlation with OS or PFS. Eleven patients developed brain metastases during treatment, first detected by PET/CT in two and by MRI or CCT in nine of 11 patients. Appearance of brain metastases was associated with a poor survival. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG-PET/CT and CT alone are equally suitable for chemotherapy response assessment in melanoma patients and clearly superior to S-100B. PET/CT responders have better early survival, but this is shortlived due to late therapy failure--often with brain recurrence. Additional brain MRI for therapy response assessment in such high-risk patients is mandatory to detect brain metastases missed by PET/CT.
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, CT, brain MRI, and tumormarker S-100B in chemotherapy response assessment of stage IV melanomapatients. METHODS: In 25 patients with stage IV melanoma, FDG-PET/CT and S-100B after 2-3 months (three cycles) of chemotherapy was compared with baseline PET/CT and baseline S-100B. Retrospectively, the response was correlated with the outcome. In patients with clinical suspicion for brain metastases, MRI or CCT was performed. RESULTS: There was agreement between FDG-PET/CT and CT regarding response to chemotherapy in all patients. There was a clear trend to a longer OS of PET/CT responders (n=10) compared with PET/CT non-responders (n=15; p=0.072) with remarkably better 1-year OS of 80% compared to 40% (p=0.048). There was a significant longer PFS of PET/CT responders compared with PET/CT non-responders (p=0.002). S-100B was normal at baseline in eight of 22 patients where it was available. Chemotherapy response assessment with S-100B failed to show correlation with OS or PFS. Eleven patients developed brain metastases during treatment, first detected by PET/CT in two and by MRI or CCT in nine of 11 patients. Appearance of brain metastases was associated with a poor survival. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG-PET/CT and CT alone are equally suitable for chemotherapy response assessment in melanomapatients and clearly superior to S-100B. PET/CT responders have better early survival, but this is shortlived due to late therapy failure--often with brain recurrence. Additional brain MRI for therapy response assessment in such high-risk patients is mandatory to detect brain metastases missed by PET/CT.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Corneline J Hoekstra; Sigrid G Stroobants; Egbert F Smit; Johan Vansteenkiste; Harm van Tinteren; Pieter E Postmus; Richard P Golding; Bonne Biesma; Frans J H M Schramel; Nico van Zandwijk; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Domingo-Domènech; R Molina; T Castel; C Montagut; S Puig; C Conill; R Martí; M Vera; J M Auge; J Malvehy; J J Grau; P Gascon; B Mellado Journal: Oncology Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: K M Fife; M H Colman; G N Stevens; I C Firth; D Moon; K F Shannon; R Harman; K Petersen-Schaefer; A C Zacest; M Besser; G W Milton; W H McCarthy; J F Thompson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Matthias R Benz; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; William D Tap; Sarah M Dry; Tibor Schuster; Jeff J Eckardt; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Georgia M Beasley; Colin Parsons; Gloria Broadwater; M Angelica Selim; Suroosh Marzban; Amy P Abernethy; April K S Salama; Edward A Eikman; Terence Wong; Jonathan S Zager; Douglas S Tyler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K Strobel; B Bode; R Dummer; P Veit-Haibach; D R Fischer; L Imhof; S Goldinger; Hans C Steinert; G K von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald J Schmitt; Sarah M Kreidler; Deborah H Glueck; Rodabe N Amaria; Rene Gonzalez; Karl Lewis; Brian M Bagrosky; Jennifer J Kwak; Phillip J Koo Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Andreas Koch; Sven Arke Lang; Peter Johannes Wild; Susanne Gantner; Abdo Mahli; Gerrit Spanier; Mark Berneburg; Martina Müller; Anja Katrin Bosserhoff; Claus Hellerbrand Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-10-20