PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) with [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) has increasingly been used to evaluate the efficacy of anticancer agents. We investigated the role of FDG-PET as a predictive marker for response to mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition in advanced solid tumor patients and in murine xenograft models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four rapamycin-treated patients with assessable baseline and treatment FDG-PET and computed tomography scans were analyzed from two clinical trials. Clinical response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and FDG-PET response was evaluated by quantitative changes and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. Six murine xenograft tumor models were treated with temsirolimus. Small animal FDG-PET scans were performed at baseline and during treatment. The tumors were analyzed for the expression of pAkt and GLUT1. RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients with increased FDG-PET uptake and 46% with decreased uptake had progressive disease (PD). No objective response was observed. By EORTC criteria, the sensitivity of progressive metabolic disease on FDG-PET in predicting PD was 19%. Preclinical studies demonstrated similar findings, and FDG-PET response correlated with pAkt activation and plasma membrane GLUT1 expression. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET is not predictive of proliferative response to mTOR inhibitor therapy in both clinical and preclinical studies. Our findings suggest that mTOR inhibitors suppress the formation of mTORC2 complex, resulting in the inhibition of Akt and glycolysis independent of proliferation in a subset of tumors. Changes in FDG-PET may be a pharmacodynamic marker for Akt activation during mTOR inhibitor therapy. FDG-PET may be used to identify patients with persistent Akt activation following mTOR inhibitor therapy.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) with [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) has increasingly been used to evaluate the efficacy of anticancer agents. We investigated the role of FDG-PET as a predictive marker for response to mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition in advanced solid tumorpatients and in murine xenograft models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four rapamycin-treated patients with assessable baseline and treatment FDG-PET and computed tomography scans were analyzed from two clinical trials. Clinical response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and FDG-PET response was evaluated by quantitative changes and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. Six murine xenograft tumor models were treated with temsirolimus. Small animal FDG-PET scans were performed at baseline and during treatment. The tumors were analyzed for the expression of pAkt and GLUT1. RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients with increased FDG-PET uptake and 46% with decreased uptake had progressive disease (PD). No objective response was observed. By EORTC criteria, the sensitivity of progressive metabolic disease on FDG-PET in predicting PD was 19%. Preclinical studies demonstrated similar findings, and FDG-PET response correlated with pAkt activation and plasma membrane GLUT1 expression. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET is not predictive of proliferative response to mTOR inhibitor therapy in both clinical and preclinical studies. Our findings suggest that mTOR inhibitors suppress the formation of mTORC2 complex, resulting in the inhibition of Akt and glycolysis independent of proliferation in a subset of tumors. Changes in FDG-PET may be a pharmacodynamic marker for Akt activation during mTOR inhibitor therapy. FDG-PET may be used to identify patients with persistent Akt activation following mTOR inhibitor therapy.
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: Markus Guba; Philipp von Breitenbuch; Markus Steinbauer; Gudrun Koehl; Stefanie Flegel; Matthias Hornung; Christiane J Bruns; Carl Zuelke; Stefan Farkas; Matthias Anthuber; Karl-Walter Jauch; Edward K Geissler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Charles D Blanke; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Burton Eisenberg; Peter J Roberts; Michael C Heinrich; David A Tuveson; Samuel Singer; Milos Janicek; Jonathan A Fletcher; Stuart G Silverman; Sandra L Silberman; Renaud Capdeville; Beate Kiese; Bin Peng; Sasa Dimitrijevic; Brian J Druker; Christopher Corless; Christopher D M Fletcher; Heikki Joensuu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antonio Jimeno; Michelle A Rudek; Peter Kulesza; Wen Wee Ma; Jenna Wheelhouse; Anna Howard; Yasmin Khan; Ming Zhao; Heather Jacene; Wells A Messersmith; Daniel Laheru; Ross C Donehower; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Sharyn D Baker; Manuel Hidalgo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aung Naing; Razelle Kurzrock; Angelika Burger; Sachin Gupta; Xiudong Lei; Naifa Busaidy; David Hong; Helen X Chen; Lawrence A Doyle; Lance K Heilbrun; Eric Rohren; Chaan Ng; Chandtip Chandhasin; Patricia LoRusso Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Dana E Rathkopf; Steven M Larson; Aseem Anand; Michael J Morris; Susan F Slovin; David R Shaffer; Glenn Heller; Brett Carver; Neal Rosen; Howard I Scher Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Li Ma; Yongzhen Tao; Angeles Duran; Victoria Llado; Anita Galvez; Jennifer F Barger; Elias A Castilla; Jing Chen; Tomoko Yajima; Aleksey Porollo; Mario Medvedovic; Laurence M Brill; David R Plas; Stefan J Riedl; Michael Leitges; Maria T Diaz-Meco; Adam D Richardson; Jorge Moscat Journal: Cell Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Helle-Brit Fiebrich; Ester J M Siemerink; Adrienne H Brouwers; Thera P Links; Wouter S Remkes; Geke A P Hospers; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-04-11
Authors: Michael Honer; Thomas Ebenhan; Peter R Allegrini; Simon M Ametamey; Mike Becquet; Catherine Cannet; Heidi A Lane; Terence M O'Reilly; Pius A Schubiger; Melanie Sticker-Jantscheff; Michael Stumm; Paul Mj McSheehy Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Carlos Caicedo; Maria Jose Garcia-Velloso; Maria Dolores Lozano; Tania Labiano; Carmen Vigil Diaz; Jose Maria Lopez-Picazo; Alfonso Gurpide; Javier J Zulueta; Javier Zulueta; Jose Angel Richter Echevarria; Jose Luis Perez Gracia Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.236