Christos Sachpekidis1,2, J Hillengass3, H Goldschmidt3,4, B Wagner3, U Haberkorn5,6, K Kopka7, A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss5. 1. Medical PET Group-Biological Imaging, Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69210, Heidelberg, Germany. christos_saxpe@yahoo.gr. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. christos_saxpe@yahoo.gr. 3. Department of Internal Medicine V, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Medical PET Group-Biological Imaging, Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69210, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Department of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the combined use of the radiotracers 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF in treatment response evaluation of a group of multiple myeloma (MM) patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) by means of static (whole-body) and dynamic PET/CT (dPET/CT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with primary, previously untreated MM scheduled for treatment with HDT followed by ASCT were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent PET/CT scanning with 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF before and after therapy. Treatment response by means of PET/CT was assessed according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1999 criteria. The evaluation of dPET/CT studies was based on qualitative evaluation, semi-quantitative (SUV) calculation, and quantitative analysis based on two-tissue compartment modelling and a non-compartmental approach leading to the extraction of fractal dimension (FD). RESULTS: An analysis was possible in 29 patients: three with clinical complete response (CR) and 26 with non-CR (13 patients near complete response-nCR, four patients very good partial response-VGPR, nine patients partial response-PR). After treatment, 18F-FDG PET/CT was negative in 14/29 patients and positive in 15/29 patients, showing a sensitivity of 57.5 % and a specificity of 100 %. According to the EORTC 1999 criteria, 18F-FDG PET/CT-based treatment response revealed CR in 14 patients (18F-FDG PET/CT CR), PR in 11 patients (18F-FDG PET/CT PR) and progressive disease in four patients (18F-FDG PET/CT PD). In terms of 18F-NaF PET/CT, 4/29 patients (13.8 %) had a negative baseline scan, thus failed to depict MM. Regarding the patients for which a direct lesion-to-lesion comparison was feasible, 18F-NaF PET/CT depicted 56 of the 129 18F-FDG positive lesions (43 %). Follow-up 18F-NaF PET/CT showed persistence of 81.5 % of the baseline 18F-NaF positive MM lesions after treatment, despite the fact that 64.7 % of them had turned to 18F-FDG negative. Treatment response according to 18F-NaF PET/CT revealed CR in one patient (18F-NaF PET/CT CR), PR in five patients (18F-NaF PET/CT PR), SD in 12 patients (18F-NaF PET/CT SD), and PD in seven patients (18F-NaF PET/CT PD). Dynamic 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT studies showed that SUVaverage, SUVmax, as well as the kinetic parameters K1, influx and FD from reference bone marrow and skeleton responded to therapy with a significant decrease (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: F-FDG PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 57.7 % and a specificity of 100 % in treatment response evaluation of MM. Despite its limited sensitivity, the performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT was satisfactory, given that 6/9 false negative patients in follow-up scans (66.7 %) were clinically characterized as nCR, a disease stage with very low tumor mass. On the other hand, 18F-NaF PET/CT does not seem to add significantly to 18F-FDG PET/CT in treatment response evaluation of MM patients undergoing HDT and ASCT, at least shortly after therapy.
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the combined use of the radiotracers 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF in treatment response evaluation of a group of multiple myeloma (MM) patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) by means of static (whole-body) and dynamic PET/CT (dPET/CT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with primary, previously untreated MM scheduled for treatment with HDT followed by ASCT were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent PET/CT scanning with 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF before and after therapy. Treatment response by means of PET/CT was assessed according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1999 criteria. The evaluation of dPET/CT studies was based on qualitative evaluation, semi-quantitative (SUV) calculation, and quantitative analysis based on two-tissue compartment modelling and a non-compartmental approach leading to the extraction of fractal dimension (FD). RESULTS: An analysis was possible in 29 patients: three with clinical complete response (CR) and 26 with non-CR (13 patients near complete response-nCR, four patients very good partial response-VGPR, nine patients partial response-PR). After treatment, 18F-FDG PET/CT was negative in 14/29 patients and positive in 15/29 patients, showing a sensitivity of 57.5 % and a specificity of 100 %. According to the EORTC 1999 criteria, 18F-FDG PET/CT-based treatment response revealed CR in 14 patients (18F-FDG PET/CT CR), PR in 11 patients (18F-FDG PET/CT PR) and progressive disease in four patients (18F-FDG PET/CT PD). In terms of 18F-NaF PET/CT, 4/29 patients (13.8 %) had a negative baseline scan, thus failed to depict MM. Regarding the patients for which a direct lesion-to-lesion comparison was feasible, 18F-NaF PET/CT depicted 56 of the 129 18F-FDG positive lesions (43 %). Follow-up 18F-NaF PET/CT showed persistence of 81.5 % of the baseline 18F-NaF positive MM lesions after treatment, despite the fact that 64.7 % of them had turned to 18F-FDG negative. Treatment response according to 18F-NaF PET/CT revealed CR in one patient (18F-NaF PET/CT CR), PR in five patients (18F-NaF PET/CT PR), SD in 12 patients (18F-NaF PET/CT SD), and PD in seven patients (18F-NaF PET/CT PD). Dynamic 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT studies showed that SUVaverage, SUVmax, as well as the kinetic parameters K1, influx and FD from reference bone marrow and skeleton responded to therapy with a significant decrease (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: F-FDG PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 57.7 % and a specificity of 100 % in treatment response evaluation of MM. Despite its limited sensitivity, the performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT was satisfactory, given that 6/9 false negative patients in follow-up scans (66.7 %) were clinically characterized as nCR, a disease stage with very low tumor mass. On the other hand, 18F-NaF PET/CT does not seem to add significantly to 18F-FDG PET/CT in treatment response evaluation of MM patients undergoing HDT and ASCT, at least shortly after therapy.
Authors: Karen A Kurdziel; Joanna H Shih; Andrea B Apolo; Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Yolanda Y McKinney; Stephen S Adler; Baris Turkbey; William Dahut; James L Gulley; Ravi A Madan; Ola Landgren; Peter L Choyke Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: V Vassiliou; D Andreopoulos; S Frangos; N Tselis; E Giannopoulou; S Lutz Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Twyla B Bartel; Jeff Haessler; Tracy L Y Brown; John D Shaughnessy; Frits van Rhee; Elias Anaissie; Terri Alpe; Edgardo Angtuaco; Ronald Walker; Joshua Epstein; John Crowley; Bart Barlogie Journal: Blood Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Monika Engelhardt; Evangelos Terpos; Martina Kleber; Francesca Gay; Ralph Wäsch; Gareth Morgan; Michele Cavo; Niels van de Donk; Andreas Beilhack; Benedetto Bruno; Hans Erik Johnsen; Roman Hajek; Christoph Driessen; Heinz Ludwig; Meral Beksac; Mario Boccadoro; Christian Straka; Sara Brighen; Martin Gramatzki; Alessandra Larocca; Henk Lokhorst; Valeria Magarotto; Fortunato Morabito; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Hermann Einsele; Pieter Sonneveld; Antonio Palumbo Journal: Haematologica Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; A Afshar-Oromieh; K Kopka; D S Strauss; L Pan; U Haberkorn; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jana Ivanidze; Michelle Roytman; Myrto Skafida; Sean Kim; Shannon Glynn; Joseph R Osborne; Susan C Pannullo; Sadek Nehmeh; Rohan Ramakrishna; Theodore H Schwartz; Jonathan P S Knisely; Eaton Lin; Nicolas A Karakatsanis Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-03