| Literature DB >> 33063147 |
Giulia Polverari1,2,3, Francesco Ceci1,4, Roberto Passera4, Jacquelyn Crane5, Lin Du6, Gang Li6, Stefano Fanti2, Nicholas Bernthal7, Fritz C Eilber8,9, Martin Allen-Auerbach1, Johannes Czernin1,9, Jeremie Calais10,11, Noah Federman5,7,9.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This is a prospective, single-center trial in pediatric patients with sarcoma aiming to evaluate [18F]FDG PET/CT as a tool for early response assessment to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neo-CTX).Entities:
Keywords: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; PET/CT; Pediatrics; Sarcoma; Therapy response; [18F]FDG
Year: 2020 PMID: 33063147 PMCID: PMC7561652 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-020-00715-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Fig. 1Study flowchart
Study population characteristics
| Characteristics | Value |
|---|---|
| Age | Median 15.1 (7.4–19.7) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 24/34 (70.6%) |
| Female | 10/34 (29.4%) |
| Histological variant | |
| Osteosarcoma | 17/34 (50%) |
| Ewing's sarcoma | 13/34 (38.2%) |
| Synovial sarcoma | 2/34 (5.9%) |
| Liver embryonal sarcoma | 2/34 (5.9%) |
| Site | |
| Extremities | 22/34 (64.8%) |
| Scapula | 2/34 (5.9%) |
| Spine | 1/34 (2.9%) |
| Pelvis | 2/34 (5.9%) |
| Chest/abdominal | 3/34 (8.8%) |
| Lung | 1/34 (2.9%) |
| Liver | 3/34 (8.8%) |
| AJCC | |
| IIa | 11/34 (32.4%) |
| IIb | 16/34 (47.1%) |
| III | 1/34 (2.9%) |
| IV | 6/34 (17.6%) |
| Primary therapy | |
| Radical surgery | 29/34 (85.3%) |
| Radiation therapy | 5/34 (14.7%) |
AJCC American Joint Commission on Cancer
Fig. 2Therapy protocol
Fig. 3Overview of primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma localizations and metastatic sites
[18F]FDG PET parameters (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV and TLG) at PET1, PET2 and their changes
| PET Parameters | Minimum | Percentile 25 | Median | Percentile 75 | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUVmax | |||||
| PET1 | 1.8 | 5.3 | 7.9 | 10.6 | 25.1 |
| PET2 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 15.4 |
| ΔPET | − 100% | − 68% | − 58% | − 29% | + 62% |
| SUVmean | |||||
| PET1 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 4.9 | 7.0 |
| PET2 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 6.3 |
| ΔPET | − 100% | − 60% | − 46% | − 18% | + 61% |
| SUVpeak | |||||
| PET1 | 0.9 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.4 | 21.6 |
| PET2 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 10.3 |
| ΔPET | − 100% | − 71% | − 57% | − 25% | + 61% |
| MTV | |||||
| PET1 | 5.7 | 85.2 | 161.0 | 262.4 | 1579.9 |
| PET2 | 2.6 | 34.8 | 72.0 | 131.8 | 932.3 |
| ΔPET | − 94% | − 74% | − 44% | − 30% | + 129% |
| TLG | |||||
| PET1 | 4 | 54.8 | 104.7 | 259.9 | 1817.3 |
| PET2 | 1.8 | 19.4 | 45.4 | 105.5 | 626.1 |
| ΔPET | − 98% | − 76% | − 58% | − 37% | + 757% |
Fig. 4Eleven-year-old girl diagnosed with left distal femur osteosarcoma. PET-1 (a–d) showed stage IIa localized [18F]FDG avid disease (SUVmax 15.2; MTV 113.2 mm3; TLG 84.4). Non sarcoma related [18F]FDG uptake was visualized in the thymus (physiologic), the right adnexa (physiologic) and the right piriformis muscle (functional or strain). PET-2 (e–h) showed decreased [18F]FDG uptake (SUVmax 2.2; MTV 83.9 mm3; 46.1) after neo-CTX. Diffuse [18F]FDG uptake in bone marrow (h), was related to rebound post-CTX. Patient underwent surgery (necrosis > 99%) and had no evidence of disease (NED) at last follow-up. PET1, a PET 3D MIP, b fused PET/CT axial view, c fused PET/CT sagittal view, d CT sagittal view. PET2, e Fused PET/CT axial view, f fused PET/CT sagittal view, g CT sagittal view, h PET 3D MIP
Fig. 5Eighteen-year-old boy diagnosed with osteosarcoma. PET-1 (a, b) showed [18F]FDG avid lesion in the right proximal fibula (SUVmax 6.6; MTV 102.2 mm3; TLG 91). PET-2 (c, d) did not show major [18F]FDG uptake changes after neo-CTX (SUVmax 8.6; MTV: 67.2; TLG: 80.6). Patient underwent surgery (proximal fibular and mass resection) and viable tumor was seen in the resected specimen. After completion of adjuvant CTX patient developed lung metastatic disease. Patient was alive with disease at last follow up. PET1, a PET 3D MIP, b CT axial view, c fused PET/CT axial view, d fused PET/CT sagittal view. PET2, e CT axial view, f fused PET/CT axial view, g fused PET/CT sagittal view, h PET 3D MIP
[18F]FDG PET parameters and TTP. Univariate analysis of PET1, PET2 and ΔPET for TTP in the full study population (bone + soft tissue sarcoma)
| HR | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| PET1-SUVmax | 1.10 | 0.99 | 1.22 | 0.061 |
| PET1-SUVmean | 1.15 | 0.86 | 1.53 | 0.346 |
| PET1-SUVpeak | 1.12 | 0.99 | 1.25 | 0.066 |
| PET1-MTV | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.810 |
| PET1-TLG | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.460 |
| PET2-SUVmax | 1.30 | 1.12 | 1.51 | 0.001 |
| PET2-SUVmean | 1.76 | 1.26 | 1.46 | 0.001 |
| PET2-SUVpeak | 1.38 | 1.14 | 1.66 | 0.001 |
| PET2-MTV | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 0.020 |
| PET2-TLG | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 0.019 |
| ΔSUVmax | 1.01 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 0.131 |
| ΔSUVmean | 1.01 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 0.123 |
| ΔSUVpeak | 1.01 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 0.108 |
| ΔMTV | 1.01 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 0.146 |
| ΔTLG | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 0.127 |
Fig. 6Early interim PET2-SUVmax. Kaplan–Meier plot analysis of PET2-SUVmax with TTP (p = 0.016). Patients were stratified by the median SUVmax = 3.1
[18F]FDG PET parameters and response to neoadjuvant CTX. ΔMTV parameter was significantly associated with pathological response to Neo-CTX (Mann–Whitney test). IQR: interquartile range
| Tissue Response to Neo-CTX ≤ 90% | Tissue Response to Neo-CTX > 90% | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IQR 25 | Median | IQR 75 | IQR 25 | Median | IQR 75 | ||
| PET1-SUVmax | 6.0 | 8.4 | 10.6 | 5.1 | 7.9 | 11.2 | 0.949 |
| PET1-SUVmean | 2.4 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 0.652 |
| PET1-SUVpeak | 3.8 | 6.7 | 7.5 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 6.9 | 0.813 |
| PET1-MTV | 41.1 | 171.4 | 261.3 | 102.7 | 139.5 | 336.7 | 0.377 |
| PET1-TLG | 15.9 | 108.1 | 259.9 | 72.0 | 112.4 | 302.0 | 0.377 |
| PET2-SUVmax | 2.7 | 3.4 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 0.201 |
| PET2-SUVmean | 1.8 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 0.146 |
| PET2-SUVpeak | 2.3 | 2.8 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.9 | 0.146 |
| PET2-MTV | 54.7 | 101.7 | 176.1 | 34.8 | 67.2 | 103.4 | 0.310 |
| PET2-TLG | 31.7 | 44.3 | 172.1 | 19.4 | 46.1 | 80.6 | 0.683 |
| Δ SUVmax | − 64% | − 57% | − 11% | − 85% | − 59% | − 36% | 0.377 |
| Δ SUVmean | − 51% | − 34% | − 3% | − 69% | − 50% | − 38% | 0.102 |
| Δ SUVpeak | − 62% | − 46% | − 11% | − 74% | − 58% | − 40% | 0.234 |
| Δ MTV | − 52% | − 34% | − 14% | − 87% | − 59% | − 35% | 0.037 |
| Δ TLG | − 60% | − 50% | − 22% | − 94% | − 63% | − 45% | 0.051 |