PURPOSE: Imaging with [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) -positron emission tomography (PET) allows early recognition of a response to agents that target key driver mutations in human cancer. We aimed to determine the metabolic response rate to vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline and day 15 FDG-PET was evaluated in 31 patients with advanced melanoma treated in a phase I study of dose escalation of vemurafenib (PLX06-02), which included four patients treated at subtherapeutic doses and 24 patients treated at 960 mg twice a day, which is the maximum-tolerated dose of vemurafenib. RESULTS: All 27 patients treated at potentially therapeutic levels had at least a partial metabolic response, and three patients achieved a complete metabolic response. In the 27 patients, there was an 80% ± 3% reduction in the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of target lesions and an 87% ± 3% decrease in the percentage of injected dose (%ID) in all identified disease sites. There was a positive correlation between %ID in all identified disease and target-lesion SUVmax (r(2) = 0.66; P < .001) that indicated a significant homogeneity of the response between lesions in individual patients. Although no relationship was found between the reduction in target lesion SUVmax and best response according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), there was a trend for patients with greater reductions in uptake of FDG to have longer progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET is a useful marker of an early biologic response to vemurafenib. Little variability in PET response was found between lesions in individual patients, which suggested minimal intrapatient molecular heterogeneity. FDG-PET is a useful tool for the evaluation of the biologic impact of inhibiting mutant BRAF and may allow for the more effective development of novel agents.
PURPOSE: Imaging with [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) -positron emission tomography (PET) allows early recognition of a response to agents that target key driver mutations in humancancer. We aimed to determine the metabolic response rate to vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline and day 15 FDG-PET was evaluated in 31 patients with advanced melanoma treated in a phase I study of dose escalation of vemurafenib (PLX06-02), which included four patients treated at subtherapeutic doses and 24 patients treated at 960 mg twice a day, which is the maximum-tolerated dose of vemurafenib. RESULTS: All 27 patients treated at potentially therapeutic levels had at least a partial metabolic response, and three patients achieved a complete metabolic response. In the 27 patients, there was an 80% ± 3% reduction in the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of target lesions and an 87% ± 3% decrease in the percentage of injected dose (%ID) in all identified disease sites. There was a positive correlation between %ID in all identified disease and target-lesion SUVmax (r(2) = 0.66; P < .001) that indicated a significant homogeneity of the response between lesions in individual patients. Although no relationship was found between the reduction in target lesion SUVmax and best response according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), there was a trend for patients with greater reductions in uptake of FDG to have longer progression-free survival. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET is a useful marker of an early biologic response to vemurafenib. Little variability in PET response was found between lesions in individual patients, which suggested minimal intrapatient molecular heterogeneity. FDG-PET is a useful tool for the evaluation of the biologic impact of inhibiting mutant BRAF and may allow for the more effective development of novel agents.
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: John A Curtin; Jane Fridlyand; Toshiro Kageshita; Hetal N Patel; Klaus J Busam; Heinz Kutzner; Kwang-Hyun Cho; Setsuya Aiba; Eva-Bettina Bröcker; Philip E LeBoit; Dan Pinkel; Boris C Bastian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard D Carvajal; Cristina R Antonescu; Jedd D Wolchok; Paul B Chapman; Ruth-Ann Roman; Jerrold Teitcher; Katherine S Panageas; Klaus J Busam; Bartosz Chmielowski; Jose Lutzky; Anna C Pavlick; Anne Fusco; Lauren Cane; Naoko Takebe; Swapna Vemula; Nancy Bouvier; Boris C Bastian; Gary K Schwartz Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Thomas Zander; Matthias Scheffler; Lucia Nogova; Carsten Kobe; Walburga Engel-Riedel; Martin Hellmich; Irini Papachristou; Karin Toepelt; Andreas Draube; Lukas Heukamp; Reinhard Buettner; Yon D Ko; Roland T Ullrich; Egbert Smit; Ronald Boellaard; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Michael Hallek; Andreas H Jacobs; Andreas Schlesinger; Karin Schulte; Silvia Querings; Erich Stoelben; Bernd Neumaier; Roman K Thomas; Markus Dietlein; Jürgen Wolf Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Charles D Blanke; George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Michael C Heinrich; Burton Eisenberg; Jonathan A Fletcher; Christopher L Corless; Christopher D M Fletcher; Peter J Roberts; Daniela Heinz; Elisabeth Wehre; Zariana Nikolova; Heikki Joensuu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helen Davies; Graham R Bignell; Charles Cox; Philip Stephens; Sarah Edkins; Sheila Clegg; Jon Teague; Hayley Woffendin; Mathew J Garnett; William Bottomley; Neil Davis; Ed Dicks; Rebecca Ewing; Yvonne Floyd; Kristian Gray; Sarah Hall; Rachel Hawes; Jaime Hughes; Vivian Kosmidou; Andrew Menzies; Catherine Mould; Adrian Parker; Claire Stevens; Stephen Watt; Steven Hooper; Rebecca Wilson; Hiran Jayatilake; Barry A Gusterson; Colin Cooper; Janet Shipley; Darren Hargrave; Katherine Pritchard-Jones; Norman Maitland; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Giuseppe Palmieri; Antonio Cossu; Adrienne Flanagan; Andrew Nicholson; Judy W C Ho; Suet Y Leung; Siu T Yuen; Barbara L Weber; Hilliard F Seigler; Timothy L Darrow; Hugh Paterson; Richard Marais; Christopher J Marshall; Richard Wooster; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nature Date: 2002-06-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jordi Rodon; Irene Braña; Lillian L Siu; Maja J De Jonge; Natasha Homji; David Mills; Emmanuelle Di Tomaso; Celine Sarr; Lucia Trandafir; Cristian Massacesi; Ferry Eskens; Johanna C Bendell Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Nicholas Theodosakis; Matthew A Held; Alexander Marzuka-Alcala; Katrina M Meeth; Goran Micevic; Georgina V Long; Richard A Scolyer; David F Stern; Marcus W Bosenberg Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Tiffany J Parmenter; Margarete Kleinschmidt; Kathryn M Kinross; Simon T Bond; Jason Li; Mohan R Kaadige; Aparna Rao; Karen E Sheppard; Willy Hugo; Gulietta M Pupo; Richard B Pearson; Sean L McGee; Georgina V Long; Richard A Scolyer; Helen Rizos; Roger S Lo; Carleen Cullinane; Donald E Ayer; Antoni Ribas; Ricky W Johnstone; Rodney J Hicks; Grant A McArthur Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Emma Shtivelman; Michael Q A Davies; Patrick Hwu; James Yang; Michal Lotem; Moshe Oren; Keith T Flaherty; David E Fisher Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2014-04-15