Joan Fledelius1, Anne Winther-Larsen2, Azza A Khalil3, Karin Hjorthaug4, Jørgen Frøkiær4, Peter Meldgaard3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Herning Regional HospitalHerning, Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Aarhus University HospitalAarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University HospitalAarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Centre, Aarhus University HospitalAarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
We evaluated whether changes in 18F-Fluoro-D-Glucose (18F-FDG)-uptake evaluated early during erlotinib treatment predict survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans from 56 NSCLC patients before and after 7-10 days of erlotinib treatment were analyzed with four different methods: Visual evaluation and percentage change in lean body mass corrected standardized uptake values (SULs): SULpeak, SULmax and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The semi-quantitative parameters abilities to predict progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared and we found that percentage change in SULpeak, SULmax and TLG all correlated with PFS and OS with the strongest correlation found for TLG (R=0.51, P < 0.001). The highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting OS was for TLG (0.70 (0.56-0.85)) with a sensitivity of 0.68 and a specificity of 079. All methods except visual evaluation, SULpeak at 15% and 30%, and TLG at 40% cut-off separates the survival curves for the response categories for PFS. For OS, visual evaluation and SULmax did not, whereas TLG at 4 different cut-off levels and SULpeak at the three lowest cut-off levels did. IN CONCLUSION: Early change in 18F-FDG-uptake during erlotinib correlated to both PFS and OS. TLG, as suggested by PERCIST 1.0, shows the strongest correlation to survival, whereas visual evaluation seems to be less sensitive at this very early time-point, but lower cut-off levels for discriminating between response categories seem to be relevant as we find that 20-25% change for both response and progression is optimal.
We evaluated whether changes in 18F-Fluoro-D-Glucose (18F-FDG)-uptake evaluated early during erlotinib treatment predict survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans from 56 NSCLCpatients before and after 7-10 days of erlotinib treatment were analyzed with four different methods: Visual evaluation and percentage change in lean body mass corrected standardized uptake values (SULs): SULpeak, SULmax and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The semi-quantitative parameters abilities to predict progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared and we found that percentage change in SULpeak, SULmax and TLG all correlated with PFS and OS with the strongest correlation found for TLG (R=0.51, P < 0.001). The highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting OS was for TLG (0.70 (0.56-0.85)) with a sensitivity of 0.68 and a specificity of 079. All methods except visual evaluation, SULpeak at 15% and 30%, and TLG at 40% cut-off separates the survival curves for the response categories for PFS. For OS, visual evaluation and SULmax did not, whereas TLG at 4 different cut-off levels and SULpeak at the three lowest cut-off levels did. IN CONCLUSION: Early change in 18F-FDG-uptake during erlotinib correlated to both PFS and OS. TLG, as suggested by PERCIST 1.0, shows the strongest correlation to survival, whereas visual evaluation seems to be less sensitive at this very early time-point, but lower cut-off levels for discriminating between response categories seem to be relevant as we find that 20-25% change for both response and progression is optimal.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-FDG; PERCIST 1.0; early response evaluation; lung cancer
Authors: Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Thomas Zander; Lucia Nogova; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Bernd Neumaier; Roland T Ullrich; Arne Holstein; Markus Dietlein; Jürgen Wolf; Carsten Kobe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Linda Mileshkin; Rodney J Hicks; Brett G M Hughes; Paul L R Mitchell; Veena Charu; Barbara J Gitlitz; David Macfarlane; Benjamin Solomon; Lukas C Amler; Wei Yu; Andrea Pirzkall; Bernard M Fine Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matthias R Benz; Ken Herrmann; Franziska Walter; Edward B Garon; Karen L Reckamp; Robert Figlin; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marcello Tiseo; Massimo Ippolito; Maura Scarlattei; Pietro Spadaro; Sebastiano Cosentino; Fiorenza Latteri; Livia Ruffini; Marco Bartolotti; Beatrice Bortesi; Claudia Fumarola; Cristina Caffarra; Andrea Cavazzoni; Roberta R Alfieri; Pier Giorgio Petronini; Roberto Bordonaro; Paolo Bruzzi; Andrea Ardizzoni; Hector J Soto Parra Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Anne Winther-Larsen; Joan Fledelius; Christina Demuth; Catharina M Bylov; Peter Meldgaard; Boe S Sorensen Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2016-10-29 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Hyung-Jun Im; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Inki Lee; Tyler Bradshaw; Najat C Daw; Fariba Navid; Barry L Shulkin; Steve Y Cho Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-20