Robert Carr1, Stefano Fanti2, Diana Paez3, Juliano Cerci4, Tamás Györke5, Francisca Redondo6, Tim P Morris7, Claudio Meneghetti8, Chirayu Auewarakul9, Reena Nair10, Charity Gorospe11, June-Key Chung12, Isinsu Kuzu13, Monica Celli2, Sumeet Gujral14, Rose Ann Padua15, Maurizio Dondi3. 1. Department of Haematology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital, King's College, London, United Kingdom robtcarr@gmail.com. 2. Policlinico S. Orsola Malpighi, Universita de Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 3. Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Application, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. 4. Quanta Diagnóstico e Terapia, Curitiba, Sâo Paulo, Brazil. 5. ScanoMed Medical Diagnostic Ltd., Budapest, Hungary Department of Nuclear Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 6. Oncologic Clinic, Fundación Arturo Lopez Perez, Santiago, Chile. 7. Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 8. Hospital de Clinicas, Universidade de Sâo Paulo, Sâo Paulo, Brazil. 9. Chulabhorn Cancer Centre and Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. 11. St Luke's Medical Centre, Manila, Philippines. 12. Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 13. Department of Pathology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 14. Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India; and. 15. Université Paris-Diderot, UMRS-940, Institut d'Hématologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The International Atomic Energy Agency sponsored a large, multinational, prospective study to further define PET for risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and to test the hypothesis that international biological diversity or diversity of healthcare systems may influence the kinetics of treatment response as assessed by interim PET (I-PET). METHODS: Cancer centers in Brazil, Chile, Hungary, India, Italy, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand followed a common protocol based on treatment with R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, hydroxyadriamycin, vincristine, prednisolone with rituximab), with I-PET after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy and at the end of chemotherapy scored visually. RESULTS: Two-year survivals for all 327 patients (median follow-up, 35 mo) were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74%-83%) for event-free survival (EFS) and 86% (95% CI, 81%-89%) for overall survival (OS). Two hundred ten patients (64%) were I-PET-negative, and 117 (36%) were I-PET-positive. Two-year EFS was 90% (95% CI, 85%-93%) for I-PET-negative and 58% (95% CI, 48%-66%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 5.31 (95% CI, 3.29-8.56). Two-year OS was 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%) for I-PET-negative and 72% (95% CI, 63%-80%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 3.86 (95% CI, 2.12-7.03). On sequential monitoring, 192 of 312 (62%) patients had complete response at both I-PET and end-of-chemotherapy PET, with an EFS of 97% (95% CI, 92%-98%); 110 of these with favorable clinical indicators had an EFS of 98% (95% CI, 92%-100%). In contrast, the 107 I-PET-positive cases segregated into 2 groups: 58 (54%) achieved PET-negative complete remission at the end of chemotherapy (EFS, 86%; 95% CI, 73%-93%); 46% remained PET-positive (EFS, 35%; 95% CI, 22%-48%). Heterogeneity analysis found no significant difference between countries for outcomes stratified by I-PET. CONCLUSION: This large international cohort delivers 3 novel findings: treatment response assessed by I-PET is comparable across disparate healthcare systems, secondly a negative I-PET findings together with good clinical status identifies a group with an EFS of 98%, and thirdly a single I-PET scan does not differentiate chemoresistant lymphoma from complete response and cannot be used to guide risk-adapted therapy.
UNLABELLED: The International Atomic Energy Agency sponsored a large, multinational, prospective study to further define PET for risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and to test the hypothesis that international biological diversity or diversity of healthcare systems may influence the kinetics of treatment response as assessed by interim PET (I-PET). METHODS: Cancer centers in Brazil, Chile, Hungary, India, Italy, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand followed a common protocol based on treatment with R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, hydroxyadriamycin, vincristine, prednisolone with rituximab), with I-PET after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy and at the end of chemotherapy scored visually. RESULTS: Two-year survivals for all 327 patients (median follow-up, 35 mo) were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74%-83%) for event-free survival (EFS) and 86% (95% CI, 81%-89%) for overall survival (OS). Two hundred ten patients (64%) were I-PET-negative, and 117 (36%) were I-PET-positive. Two-year EFS was 90% (95% CI, 85%-93%) for I-PET-negative and 58% (95% CI, 48%-66%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 5.31 (95% CI, 3.29-8.56). Two-year OS was 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%) for I-PET-negative and 72% (95% CI, 63%-80%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 3.86 (95% CI, 2.12-7.03). On sequential monitoring, 192 of 312 (62%) patients had complete response at both I-PET and end-of-chemotherapy PET, with an EFS of 97% (95% CI, 92%-98%); 110 of these with favorable clinical indicators had an EFS of 98% (95% CI, 92%-100%). In contrast, the 107 I-PET-positive cases segregated into 2 groups: 58 (54%) achieved PET-negative complete remission at the end of chemotherapy (EFS, 86%; 95% CI, 73%-93%); 46% remained PET-positive (EFS, 35%; 95% CI, 22%-48%). Heterogeneity analysis found no significant difference between countries for outcomes stratified by I-PET. CONCLUSION: This large international cohort delivers 3 novel findings: treatment response assessed by I-PET is comparable across disparate healthcare systems, secondly a negative I-PET findings together with good clinical status identifies a group with an EFS of 98%, and thirdly a single I-PET scan does not differentiate chemoresistant lymphoma from complete response and cannot be used to guide risk-adapted therapy.
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Andrew D Zelenetz; Paul Hamlin; Somali Gavane; Steven Horwitz; Matthew Matasar; Alison Moskowitz; Ariela Noy; Lia Palomba; Carol Portlock; David Straus; Ravinder Grewal; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Steven M Larson; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J J Eertink; C N Burggraaff; M W Heymans; U Dührsen; A Hüttmann; C Schmitz; S Müller; P J Lugtenburg; S F Barrington; N G Mikhaeel; R Carr; S Czibor; T Györke; L Ceriani; E Zucca; M Hutchings; L Kostakoglu; A Loft; S Fanti; S E Wiegers; S Pieplenbosch; R Boellaard; O S Hoekstra; J M Zijlstra; H C W de Vet Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-05-11
Authors: Coreline N Burggraaff; Jakoba J Eertink; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Otto S Hoekstra; Anne I J Arens; Bart de Keizer; Martijn W Heymans; Bronno van der Holt; Sanne E Wiegers; Simone Pieplenbosch; Ronald Boellaard; Henrica C W de Vet; Josée M Zijlstra Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Mei-Yin C Polley; Michael V Knopp; Nathan Hall; Lale Kostakoglu; Jun Zhang; Howard R Higley; Gary Kelloff; Heshan Liu; Andrew D Zelenetz; Bruce D Cheson; Nina Wagner-Johnston; Brad S Kahl; Jonathan W Friedberg; Eric D Hsi; John P Leonard; Lawrence H Schwartz; Wyndham H Wilson; Nancy L Bartlett Journal: Blood Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 25.476
Authors: Neval E Wareham; J D Lundgren; C Da Cunha-Bang; F Gustafsson; M Iversen; H H Johannesen; A Kjær; A Rasmussen; H Sengeløv; S S Sørensen; B M Fischer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 9.236