Andrew Ruff1, Hatcher J Ballard2, Austin R Pantel1, Esin C Namoglu2, Mitchell E Hughes2, Sunita D Nasta2, Elise A Chong2, Adam Bagg3, Marco Ruella2,4, Michael D Farwell1, Jakub Svoboda5, Mark A Sellmyer6,7. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 2. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. jakub.svoboda@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. mark.sellmyer@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 7. Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mark.sellmyer@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) is a well-established imaging modality to assess responses in patients with B-cell neoplasms. However, there is limited information about the utility of FDG PET/CT after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapies for large B-cell lymphomas. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to evaluate how FDG PET/CT performs in patients receiving commercially available anti-CD19 CART therapies for relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphomas. In addition, we examined the time to repeat scan and the rate of pseudoprogression within this population. Lastly, the rates of radiographic response to CART therapy using FDG PET/CT are reported. PROCEDURES: The pre-treatment and post-treatment scans were analyzed from a selected cohort of 43 patients from a single institution. Patients were stratified by diagnosis of either a first occurrence of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); or a transformed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arising from indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (t-iNHL). RESULTS: More patients received CART therapy for DLBCL than t-iNHL (65 % vs 35 %). FDG PET/CT had a 99 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity for detecting recurrent disease in this group. The median time to initial response assessment was 86 days (IQR 79-91; full range 24-146) after infusion. There were no biopsy-proven cases of pseudoprogression identified. In this selected group of patients, the overall response rate by Lugano 2014 criteria was 56 %. All patients with a partial response (N = 6) eventually progressed despite additional therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its excellent test characteristics and ability to detect asymptomatic disease, routine surveillance with PET/CT at 3 months after CART infusion is supported by our data. Earlier PET/CT may be of value in select situations as we did not find any cases of pseudoprogression.
PURPOSE: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) is a well-established imaging modality to assess responses in patients with B-cell neoplasms. However, there is limited information about the utility of FDG PET/CT after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapies for large B-cell lymphomas. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to evaluate how FDG PET/CT performs in patients receiving commercially available anti-CD19 CART therapies for relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphomas. In addition, we examined the time to repeat scan and the rate of pseudoprogression within this population. Lastly, the rates of radiographic response to CART therapy using FDG PET/CT are reported. PROCEDURES: The pre-treatment and post-treatment scans were analyzed from a selected cohort of 43 patients from a single institution. Patients were stratified by diagnosis of either a first occurrence of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); or a transformed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arising from indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (t-iNHL). RESULTS: More patients received CART therapy for DLBCL than t-iNHL (65 % vs 35 %). FDG PET/CT had a 99 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity for detecting recurrent disease in this group. The median time to initial response assessment was 86 days (IQR 79-91; full range 24-146) after infusion. There were no biopsy-proven cases of pseudoprogression identified. In this selected group of patients, the overall response rate by Lugano 2014 criteria was 56 %. All patients with a partial response (N = 6) eventually progressed despite additional therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its excellent test characteristics and ability to detect asymptomatic disease, routine surveillance with PET/CT at 3 months after CART infusion is supported by our data. Earlier PET/CT may be of value in select situations as we did not find any cases of pseudoprogression.
Authors: Stephen J Schuster; Michael R Bishop; Constantine S Tam; Edmund K Waller; Peter Borchmann; Joseph P McGuirk; Ulrich Jäger; Samantha Jaglowski; Charalambos Andreadis; Jason R Westin; Isabelle Fleury; Veronika Bachanova; S Ronan Foley; P Joy Ho; Stephan Mielke; John M Magenau; Harald Holte; Serafino Pantano; Lida B Pacaud; Rakesh Awasthi; Jufen Chu; Özlem Anak; Gilles Salles; Richard T Maziarz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frederick L Locke; Armin Ghobadi; Caron A Jacobson; David B Miklos; Lazaros J Lekakis; Olalekan O Oluwole; Yi Lin; Ira Braunschweig; Brian T Hill; John M Timmerman; Abhinav Deol; Patrick M Reagan; Patrick Stiff; Ian W Flinn; Umar Farooq; Andre Goy; Peter A McSweeney; Javier Munoz; Tanya Siddiqi; Julio C Chavez; Alex F Herrera; Nancy L Bartlett; Jeffrey S Wiezorek; Lynn Navale; Allen Xue; Yizhou Jiang; Adrian Bot; John M Rossi; Jenny J Kim; William Y Go; Sattva S Neelapu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-12-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jeremy S Abramson; M Lia Palomba; Leo I Gordon; Matthew A Lunning; Michael Wang; Jon Arnason; Amitkumar Mehta; Enkhtsetseg Purev; David G Maloney; Charalambos Andreadis; Alison Sehgal; Scott R Solomon; Nilanjan Ghosh; Tina M Albertson; Jacob Garcia; Ana Kostic; Mary Mallaney; Ken Ogasawara; Kathryn Newhall; Yeonhee Kim; Daniel Li; Tanya Siddiqi Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen J Schuster; Jakub Svoboda; Elise A Chong; Sunita D Nasta; Anthony R Mato; Özlem Anak; Jennifer L Brogdon; Iulian Pruteanu-Malinici; Vijay Bhoj; Daniel Landsburg; Mariusz Wasik; Bruce L Levine; Simon F Lacey; Jan J Melenhorst; David L Porter; Carl H June Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Bodet-Milin; M Lacombe; F Malard; E Lestang; X Cahu; P Chevallier; T Guillaume; J Delaunay; E Brissot; P Moreau; F Kraeber-Bodere; M Mohty Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: H Zhuang; M Pourdehnad; E S Lambright; A J Yamamoto; M Lanuti; P Li; P D Mozley; M D Rossman; S M Albelda; A Alavi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel W Lee; Bianca D Santomasso; Frederick L Locke; Armin Ghobadi; Cameron J Turtle; Jennifer N Brudno; Marcela V Maus; Jae H Park; Elena Mead; Steven Pavletic; William Y Go; Lamis Eldjerou; Rebecca A Gardner; Noelle Frey; Kevin J Curran; Karl Peggs; Marcelo Pasquini; John F DiPersio; Marcel R M van den Brink; Krishna V Komanduri; Stephan A Grupp; Sattva S Neelapu Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-12-25 Impact factor: 5.742