PURPOSE: A clinical study to characterize renal masses with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was undertaken. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open-label multicenter study of iodine-124 ((124)I) -girentuximab PET/CT in patients with renal masses who were scheduled for resection. PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) of the abdomen were performed 2 to 6 days after intravenous (124)I-girentuximab administration and before resection of the renal mass(es). Images were interpreted centrally by three blinded readers for each imaging modality. Tumor histology was determined by a blinded central pathologist. The primary end points-average sensitivity and specificity for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)-were compared between the two modalities. Agreement between and within readers was assessed. RESULTS: (124)I-girentuximab was well tolerated. In all, 195 patients had complete data sets (histopathologic diagnosis and PET/CT and CECT results) available. The average sensitivity was 86.2% (95% CI, 75.3% to 97.1%) for PET/CT and 75.5% (95% CI, 62.6% to 88.4%) for CECT (P = .023). The average specificity was 85.9% (95% CI, 69.4% to 99.9%) for PET/CT and 46.8% (95% CI, 18.8% to 74.7%) for CECT (P = .005). Inter-reader agreement was high (κ range, 0.87 to 0.92 for PET/CT; 0.67 to 0.76 for CECT), as was intrareader agreement (range, 87% to 100% for PET/CT; 73.7% to 91.3% for CECT). CONCLUSION: This study represents (to the best of our knowledge) the first clinical validation of a molecular imaging biomarker for malignancy. (124)I-girentuximab PET/CT can accurately and noninvasively identify ccRCC, with potential utility for designing best management approaches for patients with renal masses.
PURPOSE: A clinical study to characterize renal masses with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was undertaken. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open-label multicenter study of iodine-124 ((124)I) -girentuximab PET/CT in patients with renal masses who were scheduled for resection. PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) of the abdomen were performed 2 to 6 days after intravenous (124)I-girentuximab administration and before resection of the renal mass(es). Images were interpreted centrally by three blinded readers for each imaging modality. Tumor histology was determined by a blinded central pathologist. The primary end points-average sensitivity and specificity for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)-were compared between the two modalities. Agreement between and within readers was assessed. RESULTS: (124)I-girentuximab was well tolerated. In all, 195 patients had complete data sets (histopathologic diagnosis and PET/CT and CECT results) available. The average sensitivity was 86.2% (95% CI, 75.3% to 97.1%) for PET/CT and 75.5% (95% CI, 62.6% to 88.4%) for CECT (P = .023). The average specificity was 85.9% (95% CI, 69.4% to 99.9%) for PET/CT and 46.8% (95% CI, 18.8% to 74.7%) for CECT (P = .005). Inter-reader agreement was high (κ range, 0.87 to 0.92 for PET/CT; 0.67 to 0.76 for CECT), as was intrareader agreement (range, 87% to 100% for PET/CT; 73.7% to 91.3% for CECT). CONCLUSION: This study represents (to the best of our knowledge) the first clinical validation of a molecular imaging biomarker for malignancy. (124)I-girentuximab PET/CT can accurately and noninvasively identify ccRCC, with potential utility for designing best management approaches for patients with renal masses.
Authors: Bradley C Leibovich; Christine M Lohse; Paul L Crispen; Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael J Leveridge; Antonio Finelli; John R Kachura; Andrew Evans; Hannah Chung; Daniel A Shiff; Kimberly Fernandes; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Malik E Juweid; Gregory A Wiseman; Julie M Vose; Justine M Ritchie; Yusuf Menda; James E Wooldridge; Felix M Mottaghy; Eric M Rohren; Norbert M Blumstein; Alan Stolpen; Brian K Link; Sven N Reske; Michael M Graham; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lincoln L Berland; Stuart G Silverman; Richard M Gore; William W Mayo-Smith; Alec J Megibow; Judy Yee; James A Brink; Mark E Baker; Michael P Federle; W Dennis Foley; Isaac R Francis; Brian R Herts; Gary M Israel; Glenn Krinsky; Joel F Platt; William P Shuman; Andrew J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Alessandro Volpe; Kamal Mattar; Antonio Finelli; John R Kachura; Andrew J Evans; William R Geddie; Michael A S Jewett Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicholas J Farber; Christopher J Kim; Parth K Modi; Jane D Hon; Evita T Sadimin; Eric A Singer Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: Joseph A O'Donoghue; Daniel C Danila; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Volkan Beylergil; Sarah M Cheal; Stephen E Fleming; Josef J Fox; Shutian Ruan; Pat B Zanzonico; Govind Ragupathi; Serge K Lyashchenko; Simon P Williams; Howard I Scher; Bernard M Fine; John L Humm; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris; Jorge A Carrasquillo Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sarah M Cheal; Blesida Punzalan; Michael G Doran; Michael J Evans; Joseph R Osborne; Jason S Lewis; Pat Zanzonico; Steven M Larson Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 9.236