Steve Y Cho1,2, Evan J Lipson3, Hyung-Jun Im2,4, Steven P Rowe3, Esther Mena Gonzalez3, Amanda Blackford3, Alin Chirindel3, Drew M Pardoll3, Suzanne L Topalian3, Richard L Wahl3,5. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland scho@uwhealth.org. 2. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; and. 5. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning as an early predictor of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods: Twenty patients with advanced melanoma receiving ICI prospectively underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT at 3 scan intervals: before treatment initiation (SCAN-1), at days 21-28 (SCAN-2), and at 4 mo (SCAN-3). This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was received from all patients who were enrolled between April 2012 and December 2013. Tumor response at each posttreatment time point was assessed according to RECIST 1.1, immune-related response criteria, PERCIST (PERCIST 1.0), and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. Performance characteristics of each metric to predict best overall response (BOR) at ≥ 4 mo were assessed. Results: Twenty evaluable patients were treated with ipilimumab (n = 16), BMS-936559 (n = 3), or nivolumab (n = 1). BOR at ≥ 4 mo included complete response (n = 2), partial response (n = 2), stable disease (n = 1), and progressive disease (n = 15). Response evaluations at SCAN-2 using RECIST 1.1, immune-related response criteria, PERCIST, and EORTC criteria demonstrated accuracies of 75%, 70%, 70%, and 65%, respectively, to predict BOR at ≥ 4 mo. Interestingly, the optimal PERCIST and EORTC threshold values at SCAN-2 to predict BOR were >15.5% and >14.7%, respectively. By combining anatomic and functional imaging data collected at SCAN-2, we developed criteria to predict eventual response to ICI with 100% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and 95% accuracy. Conclusion: Combining functional and anatomic imaging parameters from 18F-FDG PET/CT scans performed early in ICI appears predictive for eventual response in patients with advanced melanoma. These findings require validation in larger cohorts.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning as an early predictor of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods: Twenty patients with advanced melanoma receiving ICI prospectively underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT at 3 scan intervals: before treatment initiation (SCAN-1), at days 21-28 (SCAN-2), and at 4 mo (SCAN-3). This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was received from all patients who were enrolled between April 2012 and December 2013. Tumor response at each posttreatment time point was assessed according to RECIST 1.1, immune-related response criteria, PERCIST (PERCIST 1.0), and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. Performance characteristics of each metric to predict best overall response (BOR) at ≥ 4 mo were assessed. Results: Twenty evaluable patients were treated with ipilimumab (n = 16), BMS-936559 (n = 3), or nivolumab (n = 1). BOR at ≥ 4 mo included complete response (n = 2), partial response (n = 2), stable disease (n = 1), and progressive disease (n = 15). Response evaluations at SCAN-2 using RECIST 1.1, immune-related response criteria, PERCIST, and EORTC criteria demonstrated accuracies of 75%, 70%, 70%, and 65%, respectively, to predict BOR at ≥ 4 mo. Interestingly, the optimal PERCIST and EORTC threshold values at SCAN-2 to predict BOR were >15.5% and >14.7%, respectively. By combining anatomic and functional imaging data collected at SCAN-2, we developed criteria to predict eventual response to ICI with 100% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and 95% accuracy. Conclusion: Combining functional and anatomic imaging parameters from 18F-FDG PET/CT scans performed early in ICI appears predictive for eventual response in patients with advanced melanoma. These findings require validation in larger cohorts.
Authors: Michael M Graham; Richard L Wahl; John M Hoffman; Jeffrey T Yap; John J Sunderland; Ronald Boellaard; Eric S Perlman; Paul E Kinahan; Paul E Christian; Otto S Hoekstra; Gary S Dorfman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Evan J Lipson; William H Sharfman; Charles G Drake; Ira Wollner; Janis M Taube; Robert A Anders; Haiying Xu; Sheng Yao; Alice Pons; Lieping Chen; Drew M Pardoll; Julie R Brahmer; Suzanne L Topalian Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Antoni Ribas; Matthias R Benz; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Caius Radu; Bartosz Chmielowski; Elizabeth Seja; John L Williams; Jesus Gomez-Navarro; Timothy McCarthy; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mustafa Aras; Tanju Y Erdil; Faysal Dane; Serkan Gungor; Tunc Ones; Fuat Dede; Sabahat Inanir; Halil T Turoglu Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: K Spaepen; S Stroobants; P Dupont; P Vandenberghe; J Thomas; T de Groot; J Balzarini; C De Wolf-Peeters; L Mortelmans; G Verhoef Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Guillermo de Velasco; Katherine M Krajewski; Laurence Albiges; Mark M Awad; Joaquim Bellmunt; F Stephen Hodi; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Erik J van Helden; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Chantal Roth; Emma R Mulder; Henk M W Verheul; C Willemien Menke-van der Houven van Oordt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: O Humbert; N Cadour; M Paquet; R Schiappa; M Poudenx; D Chardin; D Borchiellini; D Benisvy; M J Ouvrier; C Zwarthoed; A Schiazza; M Ilie; H Ghalloussi; P M Koulibaly; J Darcourt; J Otto Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kimiteru Ito; Rebecca Teng; Heiko Schöder; John L Humm; Ai Ni; Laure Michaud; Reiko Nakajima; Rikiya Yamashita; Jedd D Wolchok; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Andrea Forschner; Holger Schmidt; Christina Pfannenberg; Brigitte Gückel; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian la Fougère; Claus Garbe; Nina Schwenzer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 9.236