PURPOSE: Investigate the ability of F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET combined with CT at 6 weeks to predict treatment response at 12 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab. METHODS: Five patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma were included in this single-institution pilot study. Patients underwent FLT-PET/CT (baseline and 6 weeks) and CT (baseline and 12 weeks). FLT-PET/CT response and CT response were assessed using PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, respectively. Patients were categorized as responders (complete response, partial response) and nonresponders (stable disease, progressive disease). Agreement between 6-week FLT-PET/CT and 12-week CT was calculated using Cohen kappa's agreement. Eight baseline FLT-PET/CT parameters were extracted: SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVSD, SUVmean, proliferative tumor volume, total lesion proliferation, bone marrow-to-liver SUVmax ratio, and spleen-to-liver SUVmax ratio. Eight delta-parameters were extracted at 6 weeks by calculating variation in FLT uptake as percentage change from baseline. RESULTS: Agreement between 6-week FLT-PET/CT and 12-week CT was kappa = 0.615, P = 0.025. Three of 5 patients were categorized as responders on CT by immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. At baseline, responders had a lower mean proliferative tumor volume and a higher bone marrow-to-liver SUVmax ratio. At 6 weeks, responders demonstrated a decrease in tumor volume and tumor proliferation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates the potential for FLT-PET/CT as an early predictor of response for patients with metastatic melanoma on anti-PD1 immunotherapy. Larger studies are indicated to confirm these findings.
PURPOSE: Investigate the ability of F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET combined with CT at 6 weeks to predict treatment response at 12 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab. METHODS: Five patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma were included in this single-institution pilot study. Patients underwent FLT-PET/CT (baseline and 6 weeks) and CT (baseline and 12 weeks). FLT-PET/CT response and CT response were assessed using PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, respectively. Patients were categorized as responders (complete response, partial response) and nonresponders (stable disease, progressive disease). Agreement between 6-week FLT-PET/CT and 12-week CT was calculated using Cohen kappa's agreement. Eight baseline FLT-PET/CT parameters were extracted: SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVSD, SUVmean, proliferative tumor volume, total lesion proliferation, bone marrow-to-liver SUVmax ratio, and spleen-to-liver SUVmax ratio. Eight delta-parameters were extracted at 6 weeks by calculating variation in FLT uptake as percentage change from baseline. RESULTS: Agreement between 6-week FLT-PET/CT and 12-week CT was kappa = 0.615, P = 0.025. Three of 5 patients were categorized as responders on CT by immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. At baseline, responders had a lower mean proliferative tumor volume and a higher bone marrow-to-liver SUVmax ratio. At 6 weeks, responders demonstrated a decrease in tumor volume and tumor proliferation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates the potential for FLT-PET/CT as an early predictor of response for patients with metastatic melanoma on anti-PD1 immunotherapy. Larger studies are indicated to confirm these findings.
Authors: Romain-David Seban; John S Nemer; Aurélien Marabelle; Randy Yeh; Eric Deutsch; Samy Ammari; Antoine Moya-Plana; Fatima-Zohra Mokrane; Robyn D Gartrell; Grace Finkel; Luke Barker; Amélie E Bigorgne; Lawrence H Schwartz; Yvonne Saenger; Caroline Robert; Laurent Dercle Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nadeem Riaz; Jonathan J Havel; Vladimir Makarov; Alexis Desrichard; Walter J Urba; Jennifer S Sims; F Stephen Hodi; Salvador Martín-Algarra; Rajarsi Mandal; William H Sharfman; Shailender Bhatia; Wen-Jen Hwu; Thomas F Gajewski; Craig L Slingluff; Diego Chowell; Sviatoslav M Kendall; Han Chang; Rachna Shah; Fengshen Kuo; Luc G T Morris; John-William Sidhom; Jonathan P Schneck; Christine E Horak; Nils Weinhold; Timothy A Chan Journal: Cell Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Emanual Maverakis; Lynn A Cornelius; Glen M Bowen; Tiffany Phan; Falin B Patel; Sarah Fitzmaurice; Young He; Barbara Burrall; Christopher Duong; April M Kloxin; Hawa Sultani; Reason Wilken; Steve R Martinez; Forum Patel Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.437
Authors: Erik H J G Aarntzen; Mangala Srinivas; Johannes H W De Wilt; Joannes F M Jacobs; W Joost Lesterhuis; Albert D Windhorst; Esther G Troost; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Michelle M van Rossum; Willeke A M Blokx; Roel D Mus; Otto C Boerman; Cornelis J A Punt; Carl G Figdor; Wim J G Oyen; I Jolanda M de Vries Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Bernies van der Hiel; John B A G Haanen; Marcel P M Stokkel; Daniel S Peeper; Connie R Jimenez; Jos H Beijnen; Bart A van de Wiel; Ronald Boellaard; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Nghi C Nguyen; Melissa K Yee; Abuzar M Tuchayi; John M Kirkwood; Hussein Tawbi; James M Mountz Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Michael D Farwell; Raymond F Gamache; Hasan Babazada; Matthew D Hellmann; James J Harding; Ron Korn; Alessandro Mascioni; William Le; Ian Wilson; Michael S Gordon; Anna M Wu; Gary A Ulaner; Jedd D Wolchok; Michael A Postow; Neeta Pandit-Taskar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Asser A Elkassem; Samuel J Galgano; Suzanne E Lapi; Benjamin M Larimer; Savannah C Partridge; C Chad Quarles; Kirsten Reeves; Tiara S Napier; Patrick N Song; Thomas E Yankeelov; Stefanie Woodard; Andrew D Smith Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.446