Ryogo Minamimoto1,2, Amer Karam3, Mehran Jamali1,2, Amir Barkhodari1, Sanjiv Sam Gambhir1,2, Oliver Dorigo3, Andrei Iagaru4. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, C21, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA. 2. Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, C21, Stanford, CA, 94305-5281, USA. aiagaru@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report the effect of antiangiogenic therapy on the biodistribution of (18)F-FPPRGD2 (a surrogate biomarker of integrin αvβ3 expression), and the potential of (18)F-FPPRGD2 to predict the prognosis in patients with cervical cancer and ovarian cancer in this clinical scenario. METHODS: Data from six women, age range 30 - 59 years (mean ± SD 44.0 ± 12.5 years), who had undergone a (18)F-FPPRGD2 PET/CT scan and bevacizumab-containing therapy were prospectively collected and analyzed. We compared baseline (18)F-FPPRGD2 and (18)F-FDG uptake in the lesions and tumor-to-background (T/B) ratios. The maximum and mean (18)F-FPPRGD2 standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) were recorded for 13 normal organs, as well as in all the identified malignant lesions on the pretreatment scan and the 1-week post-treatment scan. We also measured changes in (18)F-FPPRGD2 uptake from before to 1 week after treatment, and compared them to the changes in (18)F-FDG uptake from before to 6 weeks after treatment. Treatment outcomes were correlated with these changes. RESULTS: The uptake in lesions and T/B ratio of (18)F-FPPRGD2 were lower than those of (18)F-FDG (SUVmax 3.7 ± 1.3 vs. 6.0 ± 1.8, P < 0.001; SUVmean 2.6 ± 0.7 vs. 4.2 ± 1.3, P < 0.001; T/B ratio based on SUVmax 2.4 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, P < 0.04; T/B ratio based on SUVmean 1.9 ± 0.6 vs. 2.4 ± 1.0, P < 0.003). One patient did not return for the follow-up scan and in another patient no lesions were identified on the pretreatment scan. (18)F-FPPRGD2 uptake in lesions in the remaining four patients had significantly changed 1 week after treatment (SUVmean 3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.7 ± 1.0, P < 0.001), while uptake in all normal tissues analyzed was not affected by treatment. One patient with clinical disease progression had a decrease in lesional (18)F-FPPRGD2 SUVmean of 1.6 % and in (18)F-FDG SUVmean of 9.4 %. Two patients with a clinical complete response to treatment had decreases in lesional (18)F-FPPRGD2 SUVmean of 25.2 % and 25.0 % and in (18)F-FDG SUVmean of 6.1 % and 71.8 %. One patient with a clinical partial response had a decrease in lesional (18)F-FPPRGD2 SUVmean of 7.9 % and in (18)F-FDG SUVmean of 76.4 %. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed that (18)F-FPPRGD2 and (18)F-FDG provide independent information about the biology of ovarian and cervical cancers. Bevacizumab-containing therapy does not affect (18)F-FPPRGD2 uptake in normal organs, but does result in statistically significant changes in lesions. In addition, (18)F-FPPRGD2 may have potential for early prediction of response to such treatments. These preliminary findings have to be confirmed in larger studies.
PURPOSE: We report the effect of antiangiogenic therapy on the biodistribution of (18)F-FPPRGD2 (a surrogate biomarker of integrin αvβ3 expression), and the potential of (18)F-FPPRGD2 to predict the prognosis in patients with cervical cancer and ovarian cancer in this clinical scenario. METHODS: Data from six women, age range 30 - 59 years (mean ± SD 44.0 ± 12.5 years), who had undergone a (18)F-FPPRGD2 PET/CT scan and bevacizumab-containing therapy were prospectively collected and analyzed. We compared baseline (18)F-FPPRGD2 and (18)F-FDG uptake in the lesions and tumor-to-background (T/B) ratios. The maximum and mean (18)F-FPPRGD2 standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) were recorded for 13 normal organs, as well as in all the identified malignant lesions on the pretreatment scan and the 1-week post-treatment scan. We also measured changes in (18)F-FPPRGD2 uptake from before to 1 week after treatment, and compared them to the changes in (18)F-FDG uptake from before to 6 weeks after treatment. Treatment outcomes were correlated with these changes. RESULTS: The uptake in lesions and T/B ratio of (18)F-FPPRGD2 were lower than those of (18)F-FDG (SUVmax 3.7 ± 1.3 vs. 6.0 ± 1.8, P < 0.001; SUVmean 2.6 ± 0.7 vs. 4.2 ± 1.3, P < 0.001; T/B ratio based on SUVmax 2.4 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, P < 0.04; T/B ratio based on SUVmean 1.9 ± 0.6 vs. 2.4 ± 1.0, P < 0.003). One patient did not return for the follow-up scan and in another patient no lesions were identified on the pretreatment scan. (18)F-FPPRGD2 uptake in lesions in the remaining four patients had significantly changed 1 week after treatment (SUVmean 3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.7 ± 1.0, P < 0.001), while uptake in all normal tissues analyzed was not affected by treatment. One patient with clinical disease progression had a decrease in lesional (18)F-FPPRGD2 SUVmean of 1.6 % and in (18)F-FDG SUVmean of 9.4 %. Two patients with a clinical complete response to treatment had decreases in lesional (18)F-FPPRGD2 SUVmean of 25.2 % and 25.0 % and in (18)F-FDG SUVmean of 6.1 % and 71.8 %. One patient with a clinical partial response had a decrease in lesional (18)F-FPPRGD2 SUVmean of 7.9 % and in (18)F-FDG SUVmean of 76.4 %. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed that (18)F-FPPRGD2 and (18)F-FDG provide independent information about the biology of ovarian and cervical cancers. Bevacizumab-containing therapy does not affect (18)F-FPPRGD2 uptake in normal organs, but does result in statistically significant changes in lesions. In addition, (18)F-FPPRGD2 may have potential for early prediction of response to such treatments. These preliminary findings have to be confirmed in larger studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-FPPRGD2 PET/CT; Bevacizumab; Cervical cancer; Ovarian cancer
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: Krishnansu S Tewari; Michael W Sill; Harry J Long; Richard T Penson; Helen Huang; Lois M Ramondetta; Lisa M Landrum; Ana Oaknin; Thomas J Reid; Mario M Leitao; Helen E Michael; Bradley J Monk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew S Morrison; Sally-Ann Ricketts; Jon Barnett; Alan Cuthbertson; Jean Tessier; Stephen R Wedge Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Giatromanolaki; M I Koukourakis; D Theodossiou; K Barbatis; K O'Byrne; A L Harris; K C Gatter Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mihaela Lorger; Joseph S Krueger; Melissa O'Neal; Karin Staflin; Brunhilde Felding-Habermann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Roland Haubner; Wolfgang A Weber; Ambros J Beer; Eugenija Vabuliene; Daniel Reim; Mario Sarbia; Karl-Friedrich Becker; Michael Goebel; Rüdiger Hein; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Horst Kessler; Markus Schwaiger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 11.069