Literature DB >> 28027772

Metabolic response assessment with 18F-FDG-PET/CT is superior to modified RECIST for the evaluation of response to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Shingo Kanemura1, Kozo Kuribayashi2, Norihiko Funaguchi3, Eisuke Shibata1, Koji Mikami1, Hiroshi Doi4, Kazuhiro Kitajima5, Seiki Hasegawa6, Takashi Nakano1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Efficient monitoring of tumor responsiveness to chemotherapy is essential to mitigate high mortality risks and cytotoxic effects of chemotherapeutics. However, there is no consensus on the most suitable diagnostic technique/parameters for assessing response to chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We compared the tumor responsiveness of MPM patients as assessed using modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria and integrated 18F-FDG-PET/CT.
METHODS: Histologically confirmed MPM patients (N=82) who were treated with three cycles of cisplatin and pemetrexed, or carboplatin and pemetrexed, were included. mRECIST and integrated 18F-FDG-PET/CT were used to evaluate MPM tumor response to chemotherapy. Metabolic non-responders were defined as those with a 25% or greater increase in SUVmax compared with the previous value. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between metabolic-responders and non-responders.
RESULTS: After three cycles of chemotherapy, 62(75.6%) of the patients were classified as having SD, 15 (18%) with partial remission (PR), and 5 (6%) with progressive disease (PD), based on mRECIST criteria. The cumulative median OS was 728.0days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 545.9-910.1) and cumulative median TTP was 365.0days (95% CI: 296.9-433.1). For the 82 patients, the disease control rate was 93.9%, whereas the metabolic response rate was only 71.9% (p<0.001). All PD and PR patients were found to be metabolic responders on 18F-FDG-PET/CT; however, among the 62mRECIST SD patients, 18 (29%) were classified as metabolic non-responders. The median TTP for metabolic responders was 13.7 months, while it was 10.0 months for non-responders(p<0.001). Metabolic responders had a trend toward longer OS, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (metabolic responders:33.9 months; non-responders: 21.6 months; p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Several mRECIST-confirmed SD MPM patients may be classified as metabolic non-responders on18F-FDGPET/CT. Metabolic response is significantly correlated with the median TTP, suggesting it should be included in the evaluation of the response to chemotherapy in MPM patients classified as mRECIST SD, to identify non-responders.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemotherapy; Malignant pleural mesothelioma; Metabolic response; mRECIST

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28027772     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.11.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  4 in total

1.  An innovative mesothelioma treatment based on miR-16 mimic loaded EGFR targeted minicells (TargomiRs).

Authors:  Santiago Viteri; Rafael Rosell
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-02

2.  FDG PET-derived parameters as prognostic tool in progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma treated patients.

Authors:  E Incerti; S Broggi; A Fodor; M Cuzzocrea; A M Samanes Gajate; P Mapelli; C Fiorino; I Dell'Oca; M Pasetti; M Cattaneo; R Calandrino; L Gianolli; N Di Muzio; Maria Picchio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Effects of Reduction in Tumor Burden on Survival in Epithelioid Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Authors:  Aaron S Mansfield; Tobias Peikert; Nicholas J Vogelzang; James T Symanowski
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 11.104

4.  Does size matter? -a population-based analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  Jiaxi He; Songhui Xu; Hui Pan; Shuben Li; Jianxing He
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2020-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.