Pieter H Nienhuis1, Inês F Antunes1, Andor W J M Glaudemans1, Mathilde Jalving2, David Leung3, Walter Noordzij1, Riemer H J A Slart1,4, Erik F J de Vries1, Geke A P Hospers5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey; and. 4. Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Biomedical Photonic Imaging, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; g.a.p.hospers@umcg.nl.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) frequently induces tumor response in metastatic melanoma patients. However, tumor response often takes months and may be heterogeneous. Consequently, additional local treatment for nonresponsive metastases may be needed, especially in the case of brain metastases. Noninvasive imaging may allow the characterization of (brain) metastases to predict response. This pilot study uses 18F-BMS986192 PET for PD-L1 expression to explore the variability in metastatic tracer uptake and its relation to tumor response, with a special focus on brain metastases. Methods: Metastatic melanoma patients underwent whole-body 18F-BMS986192 PET/CT scanning before and 6 wk after starting ICI therapy. 18F-BMS986192 uptake was measured in healthy tissues, organs, and tumor lesions. Tumor response was evaluated at 12 wk using CT of the thorax/abdomen and MRI of the brain. RECIST, version 1.1, was used to define therapy response per patient. Response per lesion was measured by the percentage change in lesion diameter. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Results: Baseline 18F-BMS986192 PET/CT was performed in 8 patients, with follow-up scans in 4 patients. The highest tracer uptake was observed in the spleen, bone marrow, kidneys, and liver. Tracer uptake in tumor lesions was heterogeneous. In total, 42 tumor lesions were identified at baseline, with most lesions in the lungs (n = 21) and brain (n = 14). Tracer uptake was similar between tumor locations. 18F-BMS986192 uptake in lesions at baseline, corrected for blood-pool activity, was negatively correlated with the change lesion diameter at response evaluation (r = -0.49, P = 0.005), both in intra- and extracerebral lesions. Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis demonstrated that 18F-BMS986192 uptake can discriminate between responding and nonresponding lesions with an area under the curve of 0.82. At the follow-up scan, an increased 18F-BMS986192 uptake compared with baseline scan was correlated with an increased lesion diameter at response evaluation. In the follow-up 18F-BMS986192 PET scan of 2 patients, ICI-related toxicity (thyroiditis and colitis) was detected. Conclusion: In this pilot study, 18F-BMS986192 PET showed heterogeneous uptake in intra- and extracerebral metastatic lesions in melanoma patients. Baseline 18F-BMS986192 uptake was able to predict an ICI treatment-induced reduction in lesion volume, whereas the follow-up PET scan allowed the detection of treatment-induced toxicity.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) frequently induces tumor response in metastatic melanoma patients. However, tumor response often takes months and may be heterogeneous. Consequently, additional local treatment for nonresponsive metastases may be needed, especially in the case of brain metastases. Noninvasive imaging may allow the characterization of (brain) metastases to predict response. This pilot study uses 18F-BMS986192 PET for PD-L1 expression to explore the variability in metastatic tracer uptake and its relation to tumor response, with a special focus on brain metastases. Methods: Metastatic melanoma patients underwent whole-body 18F-BMS986192 PET/CT scanning before and 6 wk after starting ICI therapy. 18F-BMS986192 uptake was measured in healthy tissues, organs, and tumor lesions. Tumor response was evaluated at 12 wk using CT of the thorax/abdomen and MRI of the brain. RECIST, version 1.1, was used to define therapy response per patient. Response per lesion was measured by the percentage change in lesion diameter. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Results: Baseline 18F-BMS986192 PET/CT was performed in 8 patients, with follow-up scans in 4 patients. The highest tracer uptake was observed in the spleen, bone marrow, kidneys, and liver. Tracer uptake in tumor lesions was heterogeneous. In total, 42 tumor lesions were identified at baseline, with most lesions in the lungs (n = 21) and brain (n = 14). Tracer uptake was similar between tumor locations. 18F-BMS986192 uptake in lesions at baseline, corrected for blood-pool activity, was negatively correlated with the change lesion diameter at response evaluation (r = -0.49, P = 0.005), both in intra- and extracerebral lesions. Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis demonstrated that 18F-BMS986192 uptake can discriminate between responding and nonresponding lesions with an area under the curve of 0.82. At the follow-up scan, an increased 18F-BMS986192 uptake compared with baseline scan was correlated with an increased lesion diameter at response evaluation. In the follow-up 18F-BMS986192 PET scan of 2 patients, ICI-related toxicity (thyroiditis and colitis) was detected. Conclusion: In this pilot study, 18F-BMS986192 PET showed heterogeneous uptake in intra- and extracerebral metastatic lesions in melanoma patients. Baseline 18F-BMS986192 uptake was able to predict an ICI treatment-induced reduction in lesion volume, whereas the follow-up PET scan allowed the detection of treatment-induced toxicity.
Authors: Caroline Robert; Luc Thomas; Igor Bondarenko; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey Weber; Claus Garbe; Celeste Lebbe; Jean-François Baurain; Alessandro Testori; Jean-Jacques Grob; Neville Davidson; Jon Richards; Michele Maio; Axel Hauschild; Wilson H Miller; Pere Gascon; Michal Lotem; Kaan Harmankaya; Ramy Ibrahim; Stephen Francis; Tai-Tsang Chen; Rachel Humphrey; Axel Hoos; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thijs S Stutvoet; Elly L van der Veen; Arjan Kol; Inês F Antunes; Erik F J de Vries; Geke A P Hospers; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Steven de Jong; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Paolo A Ascierto; Georgina V Long; Caroline Robert; Benjamin Brady; Caroline Dutriaux; Anna Maria Di Giacomo; Laurent Mortier; Jessica C Hassel; Piotr Rutkowski; Catriona McNeil; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Kerry J Savage; Micaela M Hernberg; Celeste Lebbé; Julie Charles; Catalin Mihalcioiu; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Cornelia Mauch; Francesco Cognetti; Lars Ny; Ana Arance; Inge Marie Svane; Dirk Schadendorf; Helen Gogas; Abdel Saci; Joel Jiang; Jasmine Rizzo; Victoria Atkinson Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Suzanne L Topalian; Mario Sznol; David F McDermott; Harriet M Kluger; Richard D Carvajal; William H Sharfman; Julie R Brahmer; Donald P Lawrence; Michael B Atkins; John D Powderly; Philip D Leming; Evan J Lipson; Igor Puzanov; David C Smith; Janis M Taube; Jon M Wigginton; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok Gupta; Drew M Pardoll; Jeffrey A Sosman; F Stephen Hodi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Frank Stephen Hodi; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Rene Gonzalez; Jean-Jacques Grob; Piotr Rutkowski; Charles Lance Cowey; Christopher D Lao; Dirk Schadendorf; John Wagstaff; Reinhard Dummer; Pier Francesco Ferrucci; Michael Smylie; Andrew Hill; David Hogg; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Joel Jiang; Jasmine Rizzo; James Larkin; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: A N Niemeijer; D Leung; M C Huisman; I Bahce; O S Hoekstra; G A M S van Dongen; R Boellaard; S Du; W Hayes; R Smith; A D Windhorst; N H Hendrikse; A Poot; D J Vugts; E Thunnissen; P Morin; D Lipovsek; D J Donnelly; S J Bonacorsi; L M Velasquez; T D de Gruijl; E F Smit; A J de Langen Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Frank Hofheinz; Rebecca Bütof; Ivayla Apostolova; Klaus Zöphel; Ingo G Steffen; Holger Amthauer; Jörg Kotzerke; Michael Baumann; Jörg van den Hoff Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: H M Schouw; L A Huisman; H H Boersma; S Kruijff; Y F Janssen; R H J A Slart; R J H Borra; A T M Willemsen; A H Brouwers; J M van Dijl; R A Dierckx; G M van Dam; W Szymanski Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Pim P van de Donk; Sjoukje F Oosting; Daan G Knapen; Anthonie J van der Wekken; Adrienne H Brouwers; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Derk-Jan A de Groot; Elisabeth Ge de Vries Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 12.469