PURPOSE: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are widely used but have recognized limitations. Molecular imaging assessments, including changes in (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG) or (18)F-deoxythymidine (FLT) uptake by positron emission tomography (PET), may provide earlier, more robust evaluation of treatment efficacy. METHODS: A prospective trial evaluated on-treatment changes in FDG and FLT PET imaging among patients with relapsed or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib to assess the relationship between PET-evaluated response and clinical outcomes. We describe an audit of compliance with the study imaging charter, to establish the feasibility of achieving methodological consistency in a multicentre setting. RESULTS: Patients underwent PET scans at baseline and approximately day 14 and day 56 of treatment (n = 73, 66 and 51 studies, and n = 73, 63 and 50 studies for FDG PET and FLT PET, respectively). Blood glucose levels were within the target range for all FDG PET scans. Charter-specified uptake times were achieved in 86% (63/73) and 89% (65/73) of baseline FDG and FLT scans, respectively. On-treatment scans were less consistent: 72% (84/117) and 68% (77/113), respectively, achieved the target of ±5 min of baseline uptake time. However, 96% (112/117) and 94% (106/113) of FDG and FLT PET studies, respectively, were within ±15 min. Bland-Altman analysis of intra-individual hepatic average standardized uptake value (SUV(ave)), to assess reproducibility, showed only a small difference in physiological uptake (-0.006 ± 0.224 in 118 follow-up FDG scans and 0.09 ± 0.81 in 111 follow-up FLT scans). CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve high reproducibility of scan acquisition methodology, provided that strict imaging compliance guidelines are mandated in the study protocol.
PURPOSE: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are widely used but have recognized limitations. Molecular imaging assessments, including changes in (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG) or (18)F-deoxythymidine (FLT) uptake by positron emission tomography (PET), may provide earlier, more robust evaluation of treatment efficacy. METHODS: A prospective trial evaluated on-treatment changes in FDG and FLT PET imaging among patients with relapsed or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib to assess the relationship between PET-evaluated response and clinical outcomes. We describe an audit of compliance with the study imaging charter, to establish the feasibility of achieving methodological consistency in a multicentre setting. RESULTS:Patients underwent PET scans at baseline and approximately day 14 and day 56 of treatment (n = 73, 66 and 51 studies, and n = 73, 63 and 50 studies for FDG PET and FLT PET, respectively). Blood glucose levels were within the target range for all FDG PET scans. Charter-specified uptake times were achieved in 86% (63/73) and 89% (65/73) of baseline FDG and FLT scans, respectively. On-treatment scans were less consistent: 72% (84/117) and 68% (77/113), respectively, achieved the target of ±5 min of baseline uptake time. However, 96% (112/117) and 94% (106/113) of FDG and FLT PET studies, respectively, were within ±15 min. Bland-Altman analysis of intra-individual hepatic average standardized uptake value (SUV(ave)), to assess reproducibility, showed only a small difference in physiological uptake (-0.006 ± 0.224 in 118 follow-up FDG scans and 0.09 ± 0.81 in 111 follow-up FLT scans). CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve high reproducibility of scan acquisition methodology, provided that strict imaging compliance guidelines are mandated in the study protocol.
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: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Henryk Barthel; Marcel C Cleij; David R Collingridge; O Clyde Hutchinson; Safiye Osman; Qimin He; Sajinder K Luthra; Frank Brady; Pat M Price; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Anthony F Shields; Jawana M Lawhorn-Crews; David A Briston; Sajad Zalzala; Shirish Gadgeel; Kirk A Douglas; Thomas J Mangner; Lance K Heilbrun; Otto Muzik Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Adrianus J de Langen; Bianca Klabbers; Mark Lubberink; Ronald Boellaard; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Ben J Slotman; Remco de Bree; Egbert F Smit; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Scott D Wollenweber; Gaspar Delso; Timothy Deller; David Goldhaber; Martin Hüllner; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Carsten Kobe; Matthias Scheffler; Arne Holstein; Thomas Zander; Lucia Nogova; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Bernd Neumaier; Roland T Ullrich; Markus Dietlein; Jürgen Wolf; Deniz Kahraman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christie Lin; Tyler Bradshaw; Timothy Perk; Stephanie Harmon; Jens Eickhoff; Ngoneh Jallow; Peter L Choyke; William L Dahut; Steven Larson; John Laurence Humm; Scott Perlman; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lee S Rosen; Patricia LoRusso; Wen Wee Ma; Jonathan W Goldman; Amy Weise; A Dimitrios Colevas; Alex Adjei; Salim Yazji; Angela Shen; Stuart Johnston; Hsin-Ju Hsieh; Iris T Chan; Branimir I Sikic Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Robert K Doot; Kristen A Wangerin; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057