Keelan Byrne1, Shankar Siva2, Lori Chait3, Jason Callahan4, Mathias Bressel5, Matthew Seel6, Michael P MacManus7, Rodney J Hicks8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia shankar.siva@petermac.org. 3. University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; and. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Waikato Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of (18)F-FDG PET in restaging and response assessment of patients who underwent definitive treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing (18)F-FDG PET imaging for MCC between January 1997 and October 2010 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre with follow-up until February 2015 was performed. Data analysis was performed on patients who were treated definitively and underwent post-treatment PET imaging performed either as a restaging scan for ongoing monitoring, suspicion of recurrence, or assessment for suitability of salvage treatment or as response assessment within 1-6 mo of treatment. Management plans were recorded prospectively before (18)F-FDG PET imaging and compared with post-imaging management to assess the impact of the study as per our previously defined categories: high if the primary treatment modality or intent was changed and medium if the radiotherapy technique or dose was altered. In total, 62 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-six patients underwent 53 restaging scans, and 37 patients underwent a response-assessment scan. The median follow-up of patients in the restaging group was 5.3 y (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-9.4), and it was 5.7 y (95% CI, 4.3-10.8) in the response-assessment group. RESULTS: Restaging (18)F-FDG PET scans had a high impact in 24 of 53 cases (45%) and a medium impact in 6 of 53 cases (11%). In the response-assessment group, 24 of 37 patients had a complete metabolic response (CMR). Patients without a CMR had a 15% 1-y overall survival (95% CI, 0.04-0.55). Those with a CMR had an 88% 2-y overall survival (95% CI, 0.75-1.00) and a 68% 5-y overall survival (95% CI, 0.49-0.95). The presence of a CMR (P < 0.001) and nodal involvement (P = 0.016) were statistically significant prognostic factors for overall survival. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET imaging had a high impact on restaging after definitive treatment in patients with MCC. Metabolic response was significantly associated with overall survival. (18)F-FDG PET may play an important role in ongoing post-treatment management of MCC.
UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of (18)F-FDG PET in restaging and response assessment of patients who underwent definitive treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing (18)F-FDG PET imaging for MCC between January 1997 and October 2010 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre with follow-up until February 2015 was performed. Data analysis was performed on patients who were treated definitively and underwent post-treatment PET imaging performed either as a restaging scan for ongoing monitoring, suspicion of recurrence, or assessment for suitability of salvage treatment or as response assessment within 1-6 mo of treatment. Management plans were recorded prospectively before (18)F-FDG PET imaging and compared with post-imaging management to assess the impact of the study as per our previously defined categories: high if the primary treatment modality or intent was changed and medium if the radiotherapy technique or dose was altered. In total, 62 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-six patients underwent 53 restaging scans, and 37 patients underwent a response-assessment scan. The median follow-up of patients in the restaging group was 5.3 y (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-9.4), and it was 5.7 y (95% CI, 4.3-10.8) in the response-assessment group. RESULTS: Restaging (18)F-FDG PET scans had a high impact in 24 of 53 cases (45%) and a medium impact in 6 of 53 cases (11%). In the response-assessment group, 24 of 37 patients had a complete metabolic response (CMR). Patients without a CMR had a 15% 1-y overall survival (95% CI, 0.04-0.55). Those with a CMR had an 88% 2-y overall survival (95% CI, 0.75-1.00) and a 68% 5-y overall survival (95% CI, 0.49-0.95). The presence of a CMR (P < 0.001) and nodal involvement (P = 0.016) were statistically significant prognostic factors for overall survival. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET imaging had a high impact on restaging after definitive treatment in patients with MCC. Metabolic response was significantly associated with overall survival. (18)F-FDG PET may play an important role in ongoing post-treatment management of MCC.
Authors: Sonia Mahajan; Christopher A Barker; Audrey Mauguen; Sandra P D'Angelo; Randy Yeh; Neeta Pandit-Taskar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Christopher K Bichakjian; Thomas Olencki; Sumaira Z Aasi; Murad Alam; James S Andersen; Rachel Blitzblau; Glen M Bowen; Carlo M Contreras; Gregory A Daniels; Roy Decker; Jeffrey M Farma; Kris Fisher; Brian Gastman; Karthik Ghosh; Roy C Grekin; Kenneth Grossman; Alan L Ho; Karl D Lewis; Manisha Loss; Daniel D Lydiatt; Jane Messina; Kishwer S Nehal; Paul Nghiem; Igor Puzanov; Chrysalyne D Schmults; Ashok R Shaha; Valencia Thomas; Yaohui G Xu; John A Zic; Karin G Hoffmann; Anita M Engh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Alison M Weppler; Andrew Pattison; Richard W Tothill; Shahneen Sandhu; Prachi Bhave; Paolo De Ieso; Jeanette Raleigh; Athena Hatzimihalis; Anthony J Gill; Shiva Balachander; Jason Callahan; Margaret Chua; George Au-Yeung; Grant A McArthur; Rodney J Hicks Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 13.751