| Literature DB >> 32408884 |
Annie Wong1,2, Jason Callahan3, Marleen Keyaerts4,5, Bart Neyns6, Johanna Mangana7, Susanne Aberle8, Alan Herschtal9, Sonia Fullerton10, Donna Milne11, Amir Iravani3, Grant A McArthur12,13, Rodney J Hicks12,13,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockade such as ipilimumab and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies have significantly improved survival in advanced melanoma. Biomarkers are urgently needed as a majority of patients do not respond, despite treatment-related toxicities. We analysed pre-treatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (FDG PET/CT) parameters to assess its correlation with patient outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Immune checkpoint blockade; Melanoma; Positron emission tomography; Spleen to liver ratio
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408884 PMCID: PMC7227105 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-00313-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1Spleen to Liver Ratio (SLR) on positron emission tomography. Example of normal splenic FDG tracer uptake (left) compared to abnormally high tracer uptake within the spleen (right). The SUV is calculated by placing 2 cm spherical volumes of interest in the liver and spleen respectively (as depicted by red circles). The spleen to liver ratio (SLR) is calculated by dividing the SUVmean of the spleen by the SUVmean of the liver. SLR > 1.1 is considered abnormally high
Patient clinical and disease characteristics
| Patient characteristic | |
|---|---|
| Mean | 60.6 |
| Range | 30–87 |
| Female | 30 (33%) |
| Male | 60 (67%) |
| IIIC | 5 (6%) |
| M1a | 7 (8%) |
| M1b | 17 (19%) |
| M1c | 61 (67%) |
| BRAFV600E | 16 (18%) |
| BRAFV600K | 2 (2%) |
| BRAF other | 5 (6%) |
| RAS | 9 (10%) |
| Other | 1 (1%) |
| No mutation | 54 (60%) |
| Not reported | 3 (3%) |
| | 26 (33%) |
| > 1xULN | 52 (67%) |
| 0 | 52 (58%) |
| 1 | 30 (33%) |
| 2 | 8 (9%) |
Baseline PET parameters of discovery cohort (all patients treated with immunotherapy, n = 90)
| PET parameter | Mean | Median | Range | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20.3 | 16.6 | [2.2, 78.21] | 12.12–23.74 | |
| 6.9 | 6.1 | [1.7, 18.92] | 5.33–7.54 | |
| 197.6 | 60.2 | [0.03, 2694] | 13.47–212.74 | |
| 0.9 | 0.9 | [0.669, 1.364] | 0.81–0.97 |
PET Positron emission tomography; IQR Interquarter range; SUVmax Maximum Standardised Uptake Value; SUVmean Mean Standardised Uptake Value; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume; SLR Spleen to Liver Ratio
Baseline PET parameters of discovery cohort (patients treated with ipilimumab, n = 70)
| PET parameter | Mean | Median | Range | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.3 | 16.1 | [2.2,71.8] | [11.6,21.5] | |
| 6.8 | 6.1 | [1.7, 18.9] | [5.1–7.5] | |
| 175.2 | 36.3 | [0.03,2693.7] | [12.5167.1] | |
| 0.9 | 0.9 | [0.669, 1.364] | 0.81–0.97 |
PET Positron emission tomography; IQR Interquarter range; SUVmax Maximum Standardised Uptake Value; SUVmean Mean Standardised Uptake Value; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume; SLR Spleen to Liver Ratio
Baseline PET parameters of discovery cohort (patients treated with antiPD1, n = 40)
| PET parameter | Mean | Median | Range | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20.3 | 16.6 | [2.2, 78.21] | 12.12–23.74 | |
| 6.9 | 6.1 | [1.7, 18.92] | 5.33–7.54 | |
| 197.6 | 60.2 | [0.03, 2694] | 13.47–212.74 | |
| 0.9 | 0.9 | [0.669, 1.364] | 0.81–0.97 |
PET Positron emission tomography; IQR Interquarter range; SUVmax Maximum Standardised Uptake Value; SUVmean Mean Standardised Uptake Value; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume; SLR Spleen to Liver Ratio
Association between PET parameters and progression free survival, for ipilimumab and anti-PD1 treatment, analysed as continuous variable and dichotomized at the median for the cohort
| Ipilimumab ( | Anti-PD1 ( | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.997 | [0.978, 1.02] | 0.74 | 0.984 | [0.958, 1.01] | 0.23 | |||||
| 1.07 | [1.01, 1.14] | 0.066 | 0.993 | [0.924, 1.07] | 0.86 | |||||
| 8.24 | [1.08, 63.1] | 0.05 | 0.904 | [0.0623, 13.1] | 0.94 | |||||
| ≤18 | 39 | 1 | – | 0.348 | ≤18 | 16 | 1 | – | 0.56 | |
| > 18 | 31 | 0.78 | [0.46, 1.31] | > 18 | 24 | 0.81 | [0.39, 1.66] | |||
| ≤41 | 34 | 1 | – | 0.231 | ≤140 | 20 | 1 | – | 0.86 | |
| > 41 | 36 | 1.45 | [0.79, 2.68] | > 140 | 20 | 0.94 | [0.46, 1.90] | |||
| ≤1.1 | 60 | 1 | – | 0.008 | ≤1.1 | 35 | 1 | – | 0.32 | |
| > 1.1 | 9 | 3.14 | [1.46, 6.75] | > 1.1 | 5 | 0.56 | [0.16, 1.92] | |||
Anti-PD1 Anti-programmed death 1 monoclonal antibody; PET Positron emission tomography; HR Hazard ratio; CI Confidence interval; SUVmax Maximum Standardised Uptake Value; SUVmean Mean Standardised Uptake Value; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume
Association between PET imaging parameters and overall survival, analysed as continuous variable and dichotomized at the median for the cohort
| Ipilimumab ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.983 | [0.95,1.01] | 0.24 | |||
| 1.000 | [1.00, 1.001] | 0.03 | |||
| 18.71 | [1.34, 261.25] | 0.02 | |||
| < 16.07 | 35 | 1 | – | ||
| 35 | 0.83 | [0.42, 1.63] | 0.59 | ||
| < 41.38 | 35 | 1 | – | ||
| 35 | 1.09 | [0.52, 2.29] | 0.83 | ||
| 59 | 1 | – | |||
| > 1.1 | 10 | 5.83 | [2.31–14.74] | 0.0002 | |
| 0.967 | [0.93, 1.007] | 0.10 | |||
| 1.000 | [0.9995, 1.001] | 0.49 | |||
| 2.419 | [0.08, 76.00] | 0.62 | |||
| < 19.33 | 20 | 1 | – | ||
| 20 | 0.57 | [0.21, 1.53] | 0.27 | ||
| < 137 | 20 | 1 | – | ||
| 20 | 1.67 | [0.64, 4.34] | 0.29 | ||
| 35 | 1 | – | |||
| > 1.1 | 5 | 0.92 | [0.26, 3.29] | 0.89 | |
| 0.986 | [0.964, 1.01] | 0.21 | |||
| 1.09 | [1.02, 1.15] | 0.02 | |||
| 17.3 | [1.90, 157] | 0.02 | |||
| ≤18 | 49 | 1 | – | 0.05 | |
| > 18 | 41 | 0.57 | [0.32, 1.01] | ||
| ≤76 | 51 | 1 | – | 0.61 | |
| > 76 | 39 | 1.18 | [0.63, 2.23] | ||
| ≤1.1 | 79 | 1 | – | 0.003 | |
| > 1.1 | 10 | 3.92 | [1.76, 8.72] | ||
PET Positron emission tomography; SUVmax Maximum Standardised Uptake Value; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume; SLR Spleen to Liver Ratio
Fig. 2a. Kaplan Meier curves of FDG PET parameters and Progression free survival after ipilimumab. b. Kaplan Meier curves of FDG-PET parameters and Progression free survival after anti-PD1. c. Kaplan Meier curves of FDG-PET parameters and overall survival from the start of first line immunotherapy. d. Kaplan Meier curves of Spleen to Liver Ratio (SLR) and overall survival after ipilimumab and anti-PD1 respectively. (A) and (B). Kaplan Meier survival curves for progression free survival after ipilimumab or anti-PD1 and its correlation for SUVmax, Metabolic Tumour Volume (MTV) and spleen to liver ratio (SLR) respectively. High SLR was significantly correlated with PFS after ipilimumab (median PFS 1.0 vs 3.0 months, HR 3.14, p = 0.008), but was not associated with PFS after anti-PD1 (median 3.0 vs 3.0 months, HR 0.56, p = 0.324). Figure 2(c) High SLR was associated with poor OS after first line immunotherapy (ipilimumab or anti-PD1), median 1 vs 14 months; HR 3.92, p = 0.003. Neither SUVmax nor MTV was significantly associated with PFS or OS after either treatment. Figure 2(D) High SLR was associated with poor OS after ipilimumab (median 1 v 21 months, HR 5.83, p = 0.0001. High SLR was not associated with OS after anti-PD1 treatment (median 8.8 v 9.7 months; HR 0.92, p = 0.89)
Fig. 3Overall survival curves stratified by metabolic tumour volume quintile. High metabolic tumour volume (MTV) was not associated with OS compared to patients with low MTV when dichotomised at the median (HR 1.18, p = 0.606) but MTV was significantly associated with OS when analysed as a continuous variable (HR 1.09, p = 0.020). To explore this further, the discovery cohort was split into MTV quintiles and found that the quintile with the lowest level of disease had excellent OS whereas the remaining 4 quintiles all appeared to have similar OS. This suggests a degree of non-linearity between the MTV and OS
Multivariate analysis for progression free survival after ipilimumab
| Predictor | Level | HR | HR 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ULN | 1 | – | 0.738 | |
| >ULN | 1.12 | [0.58, 2.14] | ||
| not M1c | 1 | – | 0.431 | |
| M1c | 1.32 | [0.66, 2.67] | ||
| ≤41 | 1 | – | 0.334 | |
| > 41 | 1.39 | [0.71, 2.70] | ||
| ≤1 | 1 | – | 0.083 | |
| > 1 | 0.55 | [0.28, 1.06] | ||
| ≤1.1 | 1 | – | 0.042 | |
| > 1.1 | 2.67 | [1.13, 6.33] |
LDH Lactate dehydrogenase; ULN Upper limit of normal; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume; ALC Absolute Lymphocyte Count; SLR Spleen to Liver Ratio
Multivariate analysis for overall survival after first line immunotherapy
| Predictor | Level | HR | HR 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ULN | 1 | – | 0.076 | |
| >ULN | 2.13 | [0.89, 5.08] | ||
| not M1c | 1 | – | 0.163 | |
| M1c | 1.88 | [0.75, 4.75] | ||
| ≤76 | 1 | – | 0.973 | |
| > 76 | 1.01 | [0.51, 2.02] | ||
| ≤1 | 1 | – | 0.164 | |
| > 1 | 0.61 | [0.30, 1.21] | ||
| ≤1.1 | 1 | – | 0.026 | |
| > 1.1 | 3.58 | [1.34, 9.61] |
LDH Lactate dehydrogenase; ULN Upper limit of normal; MTV Metabolic Tumour Volume; ALC Absolute Lymphocyte Count; SLR Spleen to Liver Ratio
Fig. 4SLR and overall survival after ipilimumab in the validation cohort. High SLR was associated with poor overall survival after ipilimumab treatment. This was validated in an external cohort (n = 110 patients) from Brussels and Zurich (median 2.3 months versus 11.9 months, HR 3.74, CI 1.34–10.4)