Ruohua Chen1, Xiang Zhou1, Jianjun Liu2, Gang Huang3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. ljjsh@133sh.com. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. huang2802@163.com. 4. Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Shanghai, China. huang2802@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Immunotherapy aimed at inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint has been approved and used successfully for the treatment of bladder cancer. The identification of markers predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors is critical to advancing the success of this therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT is a molecular imaging technique that can provide phenotypic information on malignant tumours. It is currently unknown whether there is a relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in bladder cancer. In this study, we investigated whether PD-1/PD-L1 expression is associated with 18F-FDG uptake in bladder cancer, and whether 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging can be used to predict the PD-1/PD-L1 status of bladder cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 63 patients with bladder cancer who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT before surgical resection. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were determined. RESULTS: SUVmax was significantly higher in PD-1-positive patients than in PD-1-negative patients (33.0 ± 13.9 and 19.6 ± 14.2, respectively; P = 0.032), and in PD-L1-positive patients than in PD-L1-negative patients (29.1 ± 15.6 and 15.8 ± 11.4, respectively; P < 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis SUVmax was significantly associated with both PD-1 expression and PD-L1 expression (P = 0.021 and P = 0.003, respectively). Using a SUVmax cut-off value of 22.7, PD-1 status and PD-L1 status could be predicted with accuracies of 71.4% and 77.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Higher 18F-FDG uptake by bladder cancer is associated with elevated PD-1/PD-L1 expression. 18F-FDG PET/CT may be useful for predicting the PD-1/PD-L1 status of bladder cancer and for determining the optimal therapeutic strategy.
PURPOSE: Immunotherapy aimed at inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint has been approved and used successfully for the treatment of bladder cancer. The identification of markers predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors is critical to advancing the success of this therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT is a molecular imaging technique that can provide phenotypic information on malignant tumours. It is currently unknown whether there is a relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in bladder cancer. In this study, we investigated whether PD-1/PD-L1 expression is associated with 18F-FDG uptake in bladder cancer, and whether 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging can be used to predict the PD-1/PD-L1 status of bladder cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 63 patients with bladder cancer who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT before surgical resection. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were determined. RESULTS: SUVmax was significantly higher in PD-1-positivepatients than in PD-1-negative patients (33.0 ± 13.9 and 19.6 ± 14.2, respectively; P = 0.032), and in PD-L1-positive patients than in PD-L1-negative patients (29.1 ± 15.6 and 15.8 ± 11.4, respectively; P < 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis SUVmax was significantly associated with both PD-1 expression and PD-L1 expression (P = 0.021 and P = 0.003, respectively). Using a SUVmax cut-off value of 22.7, PD-1 status and PD-L1 status could be predicted with accuracies of 71.4% and 77.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Higher 18F-FDG uptake by bladder cancer is associated with elevated PD-1/PD-L1 expression. 18F-FDG PET/CT may be useful for predicting the PD-1/PD-L1 status of bladder cancer and for determining the optimal therapeutic strategy.
Authors: Thomas Powles; Joseph Paul Eder; Gregg D Fine; Fadi S Braiteh; Yohann Loriot; Cristina Cruz; Joaquim Bellmunt; Howard A Burris; Daniel P Petrylak; Siew-leng Teng; Xiaodong Shen; Zachary Boyd; Priti S Hegde; Daniel S Chen; Nicholas J Vogelzang Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; Yuri Sheinin; Paul L Crispen; Sara A Farmer; Christine M Lohse; Susan M Kuntz; Bradley C Leibovich; Eugene D Kwon; Igor Frank Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chih-Hao Chang; Jing Qiu; David O'Sullivan; Michael D Buck; Takuro Noguchi; Jonathan D Curtis; Qiongyu Chen; Mariel Gindin; Matthew M Gubin; Gerritje J W van der Windt; Elena Tonc; Robert D Schreiber; Edward J Pearce; Erika L Pearce Journal: Cell Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: John D Gordan; Priti Lal; Vijay R Dondeti; Richard Letrero; Krishna N Parekh; C Elisa Oquendo; Roger A Greenberg; Keith T Flaherty; W Kimryn Rathmell; Brian Keith; M Celeste Simon; Katherine L Nathanson Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 31.743