RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Positron emission tomography (PET) is used to evaluate response to therapy with increasing interest in having PET provide endpoints for clinical trials. Here we demonstrate impacts of PET measurement error and choice of quantification method on clinical trial design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sample size was calculated for two-arm randomized trials with percent change in (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET uptake as an efficacy endpoint. Two methods of uptake quantification were considered: standardized uptake values (SUVs) and kinetic measures from dynamic imaging. Calculations assumed a 20 percentage point difference in treatment groups' average percent change, and yielded 80% power at α = 0.05. The range of precision (10%-40%) in PET uptake measures was based on review of the literature. The range of SUV sensitivities (50%-100%) relative to kinetic analyses was based on a study of 75 locally advanced breast cancer patients. RESULTS: Sample sizes increased from 8 to 126 as PET precision worsened from 10% to 40% at full measurement sensitivity to true change. In a subgroup with low initial FDG uptake, a sample size of 126 was required under 20% standard deviation using clinical SUVs. More sophisticated imaging quantification could reduce this sample size to 32. CONCLUSIONS: The dependence of sample size on measurement precision and the sensitivity of imaging measures to true change should be considered in single site and multicenter PET trials to avoid underpowered studies with inconclusive results. Sophisticated PET imaging methods that are more sensitive to changes in uptake may be advantageous in early studies with limited patient numbers.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Positron emission tomography (PET) is used to evaluate response to therapy with increasing interest in having PET provide endpoints for clinical trials. Here we demonstrate impacts of PET measurement error and choice of quantification method on clinical trial design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sample size was calculated for two-arm randomized trials with percent change in (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET uptake as an efficacy endpoint. Two methods of uptake quantification were considered: standardized uptake values (SUVs) and kinetic measures from dynamic imaging. Calculations assumed a 20 percentage point difference in treatment groups' average percent change, and yielded 80% power at α = 0.05. The range of precision (10%-40%) in PET uptake measures was based on review of the literature. The range of SUV sensitivities (50%-100%) relative to kinetic analyses was based on a study of 75 locally advanced breast cancerpatients. RESULTS: Sample sizes increased from 8 to 126 as PET precision worsened from 10% to 40% at full measurement sensitivity to true change. In a subgroup with low initial FDG uptake, a sample size of 126 was required under 20% standard deviation using clinical SUVs. More sophisticated imaging quantification could reduce this sample size to 32. CONCLUSIONS: The dependence of sample size on measurement precision and the sensitivity of imaging measures to true change should be considered in single site and multicenter PET trials to avoid underpowered studies with inconclusive results. Sophisticated PET imaging methods that are more sensitive to changes in uptake may be advantageous in early studies with limited patient numbers.
Authors: Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Adriaan A Lammertsma; Corneline J Hoekstra; Giuseppe Giaccone; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Garry M McDermott; Andrew Welch; Roger T Staff; Fiona J Gilbert; Lutz Schweiger; Scott I K Semple; Tim A D Smith; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-08-09 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Heather A Jacene; Sophie Leboulleux; Shingo Baba; Daniel Chatzifotiadis; Behnaz Goudarzi; Oleg Teytelbaum; Karen M Horton; Ihab Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; Hua-Ling Tsai; Jeanne Kowalski; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Robert K Doot; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Paul E Kinahan; Brenda F Kurland; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Darrin Byrd; Rebecca Christopfel; Grae Arabasz; Ciprian Catana; Joel Karp; Martin A Lodge; Charles Laymon; Eduardo G Moros; Mikalai Budzevich; Sadek Nehmeh; Joshua Scheuermann; John Sunderland; Jun Zhang; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-04
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Elizabeth R Gerstner; James M Mountz; Lawrence H Schwartz; Christopher W Ryan; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Fiona M Fennessy; Edward A Eikman; Virendra Kumar; Kenneth M Forster; Richard L Wahl; Frank S Lieberman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Robert L Harrison; Brian F Elston; Robert K Doot; Thomas K Lewellen; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Virendra Kumar; Kavindra Nath; Claudia G Berman; Jongphil Kim; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Alberto A Chiappori; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Edward A Eikman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.794