| Literature DB >> 28941158 |
Paolo Andrea Zucali1, Egesta Lopci2, Giovanni Luca Ceresoli3, Laura Giordano4, Matteo Perrino1, Gianluigi Ciocia5, Letizia Gianoncelli1, Elena Lorenzi1, Matteo Simonelli1, Fabio De Vincenzo1, Lucia Rebecca Setti5, Cristiana Bonifacio6, Maria Bonomi3, Emilio Bombardieri5, Arturo Chiti2,7, Armando Santoro1,7.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of metabolic parameters analyzed at baseline and at interim FDG-PET in predicting disease outcome in unresectable MPM patients receiving pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. A consecutive series of MPM patients treated between February 2004 and July 2013 with first-line pemetrexed-based chemotherapy, and evaluated by FDG-PET and CT scan at baseline and after two cycles of chemotherapy, was reviewed. Best CT scan response was assessed according to modified RECIST criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were correlated with FDG-PET parameters, such as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax ), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and percentage changes in SUVmax (∆SUV) and TLG (∆TLG). Overall, 142 patients were enrolled; 77 (54%) received talc pleurodesis before chemotherapy. Baseline SUVmax and TLG showed a statistically significant correlation with PFS and OS (P < 0.05) in both group of patients (treated and untreated with pleurodesis). In 65 patients not receiving pleurodesis, SUVmax reduction ≥25% (∆SUV ≥ 25%) and TLG reduction ≥30% (∆TLG ≥ 30%) were significantly associated with longer PFS (P < 0.05). Patients showing both ∆SUV ≥ 25% and ∆TLG ≥ 30% responses had a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression (HR:0.31, P < 0.001) and death (HR:0.52, P = 0.044). Neither ∆SUV nor ∆TLG showed similar association with survival outcomes in patients treated with pleurodesis. Our study confirmed the prognostic role of baseline FDG-PET in a large series of MPM patients treated with first-line pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. Moreover, use of ∆SUV ≥ 25% and ∆TLG ≥ 30% as cut-off values to define early metabolic response supported the role of FDG-PET in predicting disease outcome and treatment response in patients not receiving pleurodesis.Entities:
Keywords: Chemotherapy; FDG-PET; malignant pleural mesothelioma; predictive role; prognostic role
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28941158 PMCID: PMC5633593 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Baseline patient characteristics
| Characteristics | All | No talc pleurodesis | Talc pleurodesis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No./median | %/range | No./median | %/range | No./median | %/range | |
| All | 142 | 100 | 65 | 45.8 | 77 | 54.2 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 94 | 66.2 | 37 | 56.9 | 57 | 74.0 |
| Female | 48 | 33.8 | 28 | 43.1 | 20 | 26.0 |
| ECOG PS | ||||||
| 0 | 86 | 60.6 | 35 | 53.9 | 51 | 66.2 |
| 1–2 | 55 | 38.7 | 29 | 44.6 | 26 | 33.8 |
| Unknown | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.5 | ||
| Histology | ||||||
| Epithelioid | 116 | 81.7 | 52 | 80.0 | 64 | 83.1 |
| Other | 25 | 17.6 | 12 | 18.5 | 13 | 16.9 |
| Unknown | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.5 | ||
| Type of chemotherapy | ||||||
| CBDCA‐PEM | 112 | 78.9 | 49 | 75.4 | 63 | 81.8 |
| CBDCA‐PEM‐BEVA | 27 | 19.0 | 15 | 23.1 | 12 | 15.6 |
| CDDP‐PEM | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| PEM | 2 | 1.4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.6 |
| N of cycles of chemotherapy | 6 | 2;9 | 6 | 2;9 | 6 | 2;9 |
| EORTC score | ||||||
| Good | 81 | 57.0 | 32 | 49.2 | 49 | 63.6 |
| Poor | 60 | 42.3 | 32 | 49.2 | 28 | 36.4 |
| Unknown | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.5 | ||
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; CBDCA‐PEM, Carboplatin and pemetrexed; CBDCA‐PEM‐BEVA, Carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab; CDDP‐PEM, Cisplatin and pemetrexed; EORTC, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
PET parameters distribution stratified for talc pleurodesis
| Marker | No Talc pleurodesis | Talc pleurodesis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | Median | Range | |
| SUVmax at baseline | 6.8 | 1.8;23.9 | 7.6 | 0;25.3 |
| ∆SUV (%) | −13.8 | −100;166 | 0 | −55.1;167.3 |
| TLG at baseline | 601.7 | 0.64;10472.5 | 423.4 | 0;14288.3 |
| ∆TLG (%) | −47 | −100;841.2 | −37.9 | −97.4;946.9 |
SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; ∆SUV, percentage change in SUVmax between baseline PET and interim PET after two cycles of therapy; TLG, total lesion glycolysis; ∆TLG; percentage change in TLG between baseline PET and interim PET after two cycles of therapy.
Univariate survival analysis in patients without talc pleurodesis and in patients treated with talc pleurodesis
| Characteristics | NO TALC PLEURODESIS | TALC PLEURODESIS | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFS | OS | PFS | OS | |||||||||
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
|
Sex | 1.39 | 0.83; 2.32 | 0.206 | 1.81 | 1.05; 3.12 | 0.033 | 0.58 | 0.33; 1.02 | 0.057 | 0.82 | 0.46; 1.46 | 0.499 |
|
ECOG PS | 1.60 | 0.97; 2.66 | 0.068 | 1.65 | 0.96; 2.84 | 0.070 | 2.11 | 1.27; 3.49 | 0.004 | 2.62 | 1.51; 4.56 | <0.001 |
|
Histology | 2.73 | 1.42, 5.27 | 0.003 | 2.25 | 1.14; 4.43 | 0.019 | 1.55 | 0.78; 3.05 | 0.209 | 2.62 | 1.28; 5.34 | 0.008 |
|
EORTC score | 1.61 | 0.97; 2.67 | 0.066 | 1.74 | 1.02; 2.96 | 0.043 | 1.30 | 0.79; 2.13 | 0.309 | 1.53 | 0.90; 2.59 | 0.115 |
|
SUVmax baseline | 1.10 | 1.04; 1.16 | <0.001 | 1.08 | 1.03; 1.14 | 0.004 | 1.10 | 1.03; 1.17 | 0.003 | 1.12 | 1.05; 1.19 | <0.001 |
|
TLG baseline | 1.00 | 1.00; 1.00 | 0.003 | 1.00 | 1.00; 1.00 | 0.020 | 1.00 | 1.00; 1.00 | <0.001 | 1.01 | 1.00; 1.01 | <0.001 |
|
ΔSUV | 1.09 | 1.04; 1.15 | <0.001 | 1.05 | 1.01; 1.11 | 0.031 | 1.01 | 0.95; 1.07 | 0.757 | 0.96 | 0.90; 1.03 | 0.247 |
|
ΔTLG | 1.03 | 1.02; 1.05 | <0.001 | 1.00 | 1.00; 1.02 | 0.671 | 1.01 | 0.99; 1.02 | 0.627 | 1.00 | 0.99; 1.02 | 0.721 |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; NE, not epithelioid; E, epithelioid; EORTC = European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; TLG, total lesion glycolysis; ∆TLG, percentage change in TLG between baseline PET and interim PET after two cycles of therapy; ∆SUV, percentage change in SUVmax between baseline PET and interim PET after two cycles of therapy.
Figure 1Progression‐free survival stratified for (A) baseline SUVmax value in patients without talc pleurodesis (B) baseline TLG value in patients without talc pleurodesis; (C) ∆SUV in patients without talc pleurodesis; (D) ∆TLG in patients without talc pleurodesis; (E) baseline SUVmax value in patients with talc pleurodesis; (F) baseline TLG value in patients with talc pleurodesis.
Figure 2Overall survival stratified for (A) baseline SUVmax value in patients without talc pleurodesis (B) baseline TLG value in patients without talc pleurodesis; (C) ∆SUV in patients without talc pleurodesis; (D) ∆TLG in patients without talc pleurodesis; (E) baseline SUVmax value in patients with talc pleurodesis; (F) baseline TLG value in patients with talc pleurodesis.