| Literature DB >> 28916904 |
Eun Ji Han1, Bo-Hee Lee2, Jeong-A Kim3, Young Ha Park4, Woo Hee Choi5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the suitability of 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine (18F-FLT) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for assessment of the early response to induction therapy and its value for predicting clinical outcome in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Adult patients who had histologically confirmed AML and received induction therapy were enrolled. All patients underwent 18F-FLT PET/CT after completion of induction. PET/CT images were visually and quantitatively assessed. Cases with intensely increased bone marrow uptake in more than one third of the long bones and throughout the central skeleton were interpreted as PET-positive for resistant disease (RD). PET results were compared to the clinical response and outcome.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FLT; Acute myeloid leukemia; Bone marrow; Induction therapy; PET; Response assessment
Year: 2017 PMID: 28916904 PMCID: PMC5602811 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0326-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res Impact factor: 3.138
Characteristics of 18F-FLT PET/CT studies
| Patient no. | Time of 18F-FLT PET/CT study | Weight (kg) | Injected activitya (MBq) | Time interval from injection to imaging (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Day 8 | 58 | 170.2 | 66 |
| 2 | Day 10 | 55 | 177.6 | 58 |
| 3 | Day 9 | 55 | 155.4 | 61 |
| 4 | Day 7 | 59 | 199.8 | 59 |
| 5 | Day 8 | 69 | 266.4 | 79 |
| 6 | Day 8 | 69 | 281.2 | 58 |
| 7 | Day 9 | 44 | 210.9 | 57 |
| 8 | Day 10 | 80 | 240.5 | 71 |
| 9 | Day 9 | 62 | 273.8 | 74 |
| 10 | Day 12 | 55 | 262.7 | 78 |
aThe injected activity was calculated by subtracting the post-injection syringe activity from loaded syringe activity before injection
Patient characteristics
| Patient no. | Age | Sex | ECOG PS | Risk status | BM blasts (%) | BM cellularity (%) | WBC (× 109/L) | Hb (g/dL) | Platelet (× 109/L) | LDH (U/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 | M | 1 | Poor | 52 | 52 | 40.86 | 11.6 | 57 | 450 |
| 2 | 72 | M | 1 | Indeterminate | 30 | 30–40 | 3.23 | 4.7 | 27 | 378 |
| 3 | 40 | F | 1 | Indeterminate | 8 | 90 | 2.65 | 9.8 | 191 | 136 |
| 4 | 48 | F | 1 | Indeterminate | 33 | 80–90 | 2.1 | 7.2 | 112 | 124 |
| 5 | 66 | M | 0 | Indeterminate | 45 | 50 | 13.3 | 9.6 | 50 | 216 |
| 6 | 36 | F | 1 | Favorable | 21 | 80 | 17.34 | 7 | 10 | 571 |
| 7 | 73 | M | 2 | Poor | 39 | 100 | 19.02 | 4.6 | 10 | 606 |
| 8 | 19 | M | 1 | Indeterminate | 68 | 100 | 21.43 | 4.8 | 35 | 825 |
| 9 | 60 | M | 3 | Favorable | 25 | 80 | 30.72 | 3 | 11 | 706 |
| 10 | 55 | M | 2 | Favorable | 26 | 80 | 14.18 | 8.4 | 56 | 1144 |
ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Hb hemoglobin
Fig. 118F-FLT PET maximum intensity projection images after induction therapy in 10 patients with AML. Five PET cases (a) showed intensely increased BM uptake throughout the central skeleton and bilateral humeri and femurs and were interpreted as PET-positive. The other 5 PET cases (b) were interpreted as PET-negative. Of these, 2 (patients 1 and 3) had invisible BM uptake throughout the central skeleton and bilateral humeri and femurs. Three cases (patients 2, 5, and 10) demonstrated perceptible BM uptake along the central skeleton; however, the intensity of 18F-FLT uptake was markedly lower than that of the liver and no significant uptake was seen along bilateral humeri and femurs
Visual and quantitative analyses of 18F-FLT PET/CT images
| Patient no. | Visual analysis | CV | Quantitative analysis (SUV) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right femur | Left femur | Right iliac | Left iliac | L4 | T12 | T6 | Sternum | |||
| 1 | − | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.82 | 0.41 | 0.50 |
| 2 | − | 0.32 | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 1.29 | 1.38 | 0.73 |
| 3 | − | 0.22 | 0.52 | 0.66 | 0.50 | 0.88 | 0.81 | 0.91 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
| 4 | + | 0.35 | 1.43 | 1.42 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 1.43 | 1.42 | 1.30 | 1.36 |
| 5 | − | 0.26 | 0.34 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.89 | 0.98 | 1.06 | 0.89 | 0.80 |
| 6 | + | 0.34 | 2.46 | 2.65 | 2.77 | 2.92 | 3.07 | 3.01 | 2.85 | 2.70 |
| 7 | + | 0.42 | 2.57 | 2.16 | 2.32 | 2.52 | 3.04 | 3.08 | 3.39 | 2.69 |
| 8 | + | 0.43 | 3.40 | 3.47 | 3.60 | 4.00 | 3.84 | 3.69 | 3.79 | 4.68 |
| 9 | + | 0.46 | 3.48 | 3.40 | 4.37 | 3.97 | 4.95 | 4.64 | 4.84 | 4.46 |
| 10 | − | 0.19 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 1.14 | 1.04 | 1.15 | 1.28 | 1.25 | 1.16 |
Differences of SUVs between the 2 groups according to visual analysis
| Visual analysis | Quantitative analysis (mean SUV ± SD) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right femur | Left femur | Right iliac | Left iliac | L4 | T12 | T6 | Sternum | |
| PET-positive group | 2.67 ± 0.83 | 2.62 ± 0.86 | 2.86 ± 1.19 | 2.94 ± 1.12 | 3.27 ± 1.29 | 3.17 ± 1.18 | 3.23 ± 1.30 | 3.18 ± 1.38 |
| PET-negative group | 0.42 ± 0.22 | 0.60 ± 0.24 | 0.74 ± 0.28 | 0.81 ± 0.18 | 0.81 ± 0.26 | 1.07 ± 0.21 | 0.95 ± 0.38 | 0.80 ± 0.24 |
|
| 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
Clinical outcome of 10 patients
| Patient no. | Visual 18F-FLT uptake | FU BM result | Following treatment after induction | Relapse | Time to relapse (months) | Death | Follow-up time (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | − | CR | Consolidation and PBSCT | No | 16 | Yesa | 16 |
| 2 | − | CRi | Consolidation | Yes | 7 | Yes | 18 |
| 3 | − | CR | Consolidation | No | 34 | No | 34 |
| 4 | + | RD | Re-induction | –b | –b | Yes | 3 |
| 5 | − | CR | Consolidation | No | 29 | No | 29 |
| 6 | + | CR | Consolidation | Yes | –c | Yes | 17 |
| 7 | + | CR | Consolidation | Yes | 10 | Yes | 11 |
| 8 | + | RD | Re-induction and consolidation | No | 23 | No | 23 |
| 9 | + | CR | Consolidation | No | 21 | No | 21 |
| 10 | − | CR | Consolidation | No | 21 | No | 21 |
PBSCT peripheral stem cell transplantation
aPatient 1 died from graft-versus-host disease
bPatient 4 had never achieved a CR/CRi after initial induction therapy
cPatient 6 had strongly suspected but unconfirmed relapse 10 months from the start of induction therapy
Cytogenetics and laboratory follow-up in 3 patients with discrepant findings
| At baseline | At PET/CT imaging | At FU BM | After consolidation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | 4 months | 10 months | 16 months | |||||
| Pt 6 | Cytogenetics | 46, XX, t(8;21)(q22;q22)[19]/46,XX[1] | ||||||
| WBC (× 109/L) | 17.34 | 0.68 | 3.41 | 4.47 | 17.16 | –a | –a | |
| Hb (g/dL) | 7 | 9.6 | 10.8 | 11 | 13.2 | –a | –a | |
| Platelet (× 109/L) | 10 | 21 | 13 | 70 | 30 | –a | –a | |
| LDH (U/L) | 571 | 169 | 343 | 246 | 1041 | –a | –a | |
| Pt 7 | Cytogenetics | 43-45, XY, del(3)(p11.2), del(5)(q13q33),−7,+8,del(12)(p11.2p11.2), −21[cp20] | ||||||
| WBC (× 109/L) | 19.02 | 0.85 | 3.09 | 3.3 | 8.2 | –a | –a | |
| Hb (g/dL) | 4.6 | 9.1 | 7.7 | 9 | 9.4 | –a | –a | |
| Platelet (× 109/L) | 10 | 32 | 176 | 170 | 38 | –a | –a | |
| LDH (U/L) | 606 | 347 | 229 | 178 | 418 | –a | –a | |
| Pt 9 | Cytogenetics | 45,X,−Y, t(8;21)(q22;q22), add(14)(q32)[20] : RUNX1-RUNX1T1 | ||||||
| WBC (× 109/L) | 30.72 | 0.66 | 5.38 | 11.41 | 4.65 | 4.65 | 6.13 | |
| Hb (g/dL) | 3 | 10.3 | 12.5 | 10.5 | 13.7 | 15.4 | 15.2 | |
| Platelet (× 109/L) | 11 | 55 | 297 | 49 | 97 | 97 | 105 | |
| LDH (U/L) | 706 | 310 | 227 | 306 | 151 | 153 | 178 | |
Pt patient
aPatient 6 and 7 relapsed or were strongly suspected of relapse at 4 months after consolidation