Literature DB >> 28654366

Quantitative Assessment of Early [18F]Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Response to Treatment in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer to Bone.

Stephanie A Harmon1, Timothy Perk1, Christie Lin1, Jens Eickhoff1, Peter L Choyke1, William L Dahut1, Andrea B Apolo1, John L Humm1, Steven M Larson1, Michael J Morris1, Glenn Liu1, Robert Jeraj1.   

Abstract

Purpose [18F]Sodium fluoride (NaF) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is a promising radiotracer for quantitative assessment of bone metastases. This study assesses changes in early NaF PET/CT response measures in metastatic prostate cancer for correlation to clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods Fifty-six patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with osseous metastases had NaF PET/CT scans performed at baseline and after three cycles of chemotherapy (n = 16) or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (n = 40). A novel technology, Quantitative Total Bone Imaging, was used for analysis. Global imaging metrics, including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total functional burden (SUVtotal), were extracted from composite lesion-level statistics for each patient and tracked throughout treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as a composite end point of progressive events using conventional imaging and/or physician discretion of clinical benefit; NaF imaging was not used for clinical evaluation. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted between imaging metrics and PFS. Results Functional burden (SUVtotal) assessed midtreatment was the strongest univariable PFS predictor (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.71; P < .001). Classification of patients based on changes in functional burden showed stronger correlation to PFS than did the change in number of lesions. Various global imaging metrics outperformed baseline clinical markers in predicting outcome, including SUVtotal and SUVmean. No differences in imaging response or PFS correlates were found for different treatment cohorts. Conclusion Quantitative total bone imaging enables comprehensive disease quantification on NaF PET/CT imaging, showing strong correlation to clinical outcomes. Total functional burden assessed after three cycles of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy was predictive of PFS for men with mCRPC. This supports ongoing development of NaF PET/CT-based imaging biomarkers in mCRPC to bone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28654366      PMCID: PMC5562173          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  26 in total

1.  Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer.

Authors:  H Schirrmeister; G Glatting; J Hetzel; K Nüssle; C Arslandemir; A K Buck; K Dziuk; A Gabelmann; S N Reske; M Hetzel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Phase II study of abiraterone acetate in chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer displaying bone flare discordant with serologic response.

Authors:  Charles J Ryan; Shreya Shah; Eleni Efstathiou; Matthew R Smith; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Glenn J Bubley; Christopher J Logothetis; Thian Kheoh; Christine Kilian; Christopher M Haqq; Arturo Molina; Eric J Small
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The kinetics and reproducibility of 18F-sodium fluoride for oncology using current PET camera technology.

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

5.  Differentiation of metastatic vs degenerative joint disease using semi-quantitative analysis with (18)F-NaF PET/CT in castrate resistant prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Saima Muzahir; Robert Jeraj; Glenn Liu; Lance T Hall; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Timothy Perk; Christine Jaskowiak; Scott B Perlman
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-01-15

Review 6.  Molecular imaging in oncology: (18)F-sodium fluoride PET imaging of osseous metastatic disease.

Authors:  Curtis G Mick; Trent James; Jacqueline D Hill; Patrick Williams; Mark Perry
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  A literature review of 18F-fluoride PET/CT and 18F-choline or 11C-choline PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Maurits Wondergem; Friso M van der Zant; Tjeerd van der Ploeg; Remco J J Knol
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.690

8.  Determination of Skeletal Tumor Burden on 18F-Fluoride PET/CT.

Authors:  Eric M Rohren; Elba C Etchebehere; John C Araujo; Brian P Hobbs; Nancy M Swanston; Michael Everding; Tracy Moody; Homer A Macapinlac
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Cancer Response Criteria and Bone Metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST.

Authors:  Colleen M Costelloe; Hubert H Chuang; John E Madewell; Naoto T Ueno
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2010-06-28       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  18 in total

1.  Impact of Anatomic Location of Bone Metastases on Prognosis in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Alison R Roth; Stephanie A Harmon; Timothy G Perk; Jens Eickhoff; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel; William L Dahut; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Scott B Perlman; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 2.872

2.  Loss of dihydrotestosterone-inactivation activity promotes prostate cancer castration resistance detectable by functional imaging.

Authors:  Ziqi Zhu; Yoon-Mi Chung; Olga Sergeeva; Vladimir Kepe; Michael Berk; Jianneng Li; Hyun-Kyung Ko; Zhenfei Li; Marianne Petro; Frank P DiFilippo; Zhenghong Lee; Nima Sharifi
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 5.157

3.  Comparison of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jing Zhou; Zhengxing Gou; Renhui Wu; Yuan Yuan; Guiquan Yu; Yigang Zhao
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  18F-NaF/223RaCl2 theranostics in metastatic prostate cancer: treatment response assessment and prediction of outcome.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar; Patrick M Colletti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Phase II Trial of a DNA Vaccine Encoding Prostatic Acid Phosphatase (pTVG-HP [MVI-816]) in Patients With Progressive, Nonmetastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas G McNeel; Jens C Eickhoff; Laura E Johnson; Alison R Roth; Timothy G Perk; Lawrence Fong; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Ellen Wargowski; Robert Jeraj; Glenn Liu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Hospice Admission and Survival After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Ilana F Gareen; Bruce E Hillner; Lucy Hanna; Rajesh Makineni; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; Rathan M Subramaniam; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 7.  Recent updates and developments in PET imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Steven P Rowe; Geoffrey B Johnson; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Spencer C Behr
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

8.  Prospective Study of Serial 18F-FDG PET and 18F-Fluoride PET to Predict Time to Skeletal-Related Events, Time to Progression, and Survival in Patients with Bone-Dominant Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Lanell M Peterson; Janet O'Sullivan; Qian Vicky Wu; Alena Novakova-Jiresova; Isaac Jenkins; Jean H Lee; Andrew Shields; Susan Montgomery; Hannah M Linden; Julie Gralow; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Mark Muzi; Paul Kinahan; David Mankoff; Jennifer M Specht
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Treatment Response Assessment of Skeletal Metastases in Prostate Cancer with 18F-NaF PET/CT.

Authors:  Erik M Velez; Bhushan Desai; Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-06-24

Review 10.  Measuring the unmeasurable: automated bone scan index as a quantitative endpoint in prostate cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Jose Mauricio Mota; Andrew J Armstrong; Steven M Larson; Josef J Fox; Michael J Morris
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 5.554

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.