Matthias R Benz1, Ken Herrmann1, Franziska Walter1, Edward B Garon2, Karen L Reckamp3, Robert Figlin4, Michael E Phelps1, Wolfgang A Weber1,5, Johannes Czernin1, Martin S Allen-Auerbach1. 1. Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 2. Division of Medical Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. City of Hope and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California. 4. Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 5. Abteilung Nuklearmedizin, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Response rates of unselected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib are low and range from 10% to 20%. Early response assessments are needed to avoid costs and side effects of inefficient treatments. Here we determined whether early changes in tumor uptake of (18)F-FDG can predict progression-free and overall survival in NSCLC patients who are treated with erlotinib. METHODS: Twenty-two patients (6 men, 16 women; mean age ± SD, 64 ± 13 y) with stage III or stage IV NSCLC who received erlotinib treatment were enrolled prospectively. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed before the initiation of treatment (n = 22), after 2 wk (n = 22), and after 78 ± 21 d (n = 11). Tumor maximum standardized uptake values were measured for a maximum of 5 lesions for each patient. Tumor responses were classified using modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (use of maximum standardized uptake values). Median overall survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between groups using a log-rank test. RESULTS: The overall median time to progression was 52 d (95% confidence interval, 47-57 d). The overall median survival time was 131 d (95% confidence interval, 0-351 d). Patients with progressive metabolic disease on early follow-up PET showed a significantly shorter time to progression (47 vs. 119 d; P < 0.001) and overall survival (87 vs. 828 d; P = 0.01) than patients classified as having stable metabolic disease or partial or complete metabolic response. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that (18)F-FDG PET/CT performed early after the start of erlotinib treatment can help to identify patients who benefit from this targeted therapy.
UNLABELLED: Response rates of unselected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib are low and range from 10% to 20%. Early response assessments are needed to avoid costs and side effects of inefficient treatments. Here we determined whether early changes in tumor uptake of (18)F-FDG can predict progression-free and overall survival in NSCLCpatients who are treated with erlotinib. METHODS: Twenty-two patients (6 men, 16 women; mean age ± SD, 64 ± 13 y) with stage III or stage IV NSCLC who received erlotinib treatment were enrolled prospectively. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed before the initiation of treatment (n = 22), after 2 wk (n = 22), and after 78 ± 21 d (n = 11). Tumor maximum standardized uptake values were measured for a maximum of 5 lesions for each patient. Tumor responses were classified using modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (use of maximum standardized uptake values). Median overall survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between groups using a log-rank test. RESULTS: The overall median time to progression was 52 d (95% confidence interval, 47-57 d). The overall median survival time was 131 d (95% confidence interval, 0-351 d). Patients with progressive metabolic disease on early follow-up PET showed a significantly shorter time to progression (47 vs. 119 d; P < 0.001) and overall survival (87 vs. 828 d; P = 0.01) than patients classified as having stable metabolic disease or partial or complete metabolic response. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that (18)F-FDG PET/CT performed early after the start of erlotinib treatment can help to identify patients who benefit from this targeted 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: Jonas Schreyögg; Julia Weller; Tom Stargardt; Ken Herrmann; Christina Bluemel; Tobias Dechow; Gerhard Glatting; Bernd J Krause; Felix Mottaghy; Sven N Reske; Andreas K Buck Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Benjamin S Halpern; Magnus Dahlbom; Martin A Auerbach; Christiaan Schiepers; Barbara J Fueger; Wolfgang A Weber; Daniel H S Silverman; Osman Ratib; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Linda Mileshkin; Rodney J Hicks; Brett G M Hughes; Paul L R Mitchell; Veena Charu; Barbara J Gitlitz; David Macfarlane; Benjamin Solomon; Lukas C Amler; Wei Yu; Andrea Pirzkall; Bernard M Fine Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mark G Kris; Ronald B Natale; Roy S Herbst; Thomas J Lynch; Diane Prager; Chandra P Belani; Joan H Schiller; Karen Kelly; Harris Spiridonidis; Alan Sandler; Kathy S Albain; David Cella; Michael K Wolf; Steven D Averbuch; Judith J Ochs; Andrea C Kay Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Donna E Maziak; Gail E Darling; Richard I Inculet; Karen Y Gulenchyn; Albert A Driedger; Yee C Ung; John D Miller; Chu-Shu Gu; Kathryn J Cline; William K Evans; Mark N Levine Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vincent A Miller; Mark G Kris; Neelam Shah; Jyoti Patel; Christopher Azzoli; Jorge Gomez; Lee M Krug; William Pao; Naiyer Rizvi; Barbara Pizzo; Leslie Tyson; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Leah Ben-Porat; Natalie Memoli; Maureen Zakowski; Valerie Rusch; Robert T Heelan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chunxia Su; Mathias Meyer; Robert Pirker; Wieland Voigt; Jingyun Shi; Lothar Pilz; Rudolf M Huber; Yilong Wu; Jinghong Wang; Yonglan He; Xuan Wang; Jian Zhang; Xiuyi Zhi; Meiqi Shi; Bo Zhu; Stefan S Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler; Christian Manegold; Caicun Zhou; Eric Dominic Roessner Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2016-08
Authors: Joan Fledelius; Anne Winther-Larsen; Azza A Khalil; Karin Hjorthaug; Jørgen Frøkiær; Peter Meldgaard Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-05
Authors: Edward B Garon; Richard S Finn; Habib Hamidi; Judy Dering; Sharon Pitts; Naeimeh Kamranpour; Amrita J Desai; Wylie Hosmer; Susan Ide; Emin Avsar; Michael Rugaard Jensen; Cornelia Quadt; Manway Liu; Steven M Dubinett; Dennis J Slamon Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Gregory L Beatty; Drew A Torigian; E Gabriela Chiorean; Babak Saboury; Alex Brothers; Abass Alavi; Andrea B Troxel; Weijing Sun; Ursina R Teitelbaum; Robert H Vonderheide; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 12.531