Andrei Gafita1,2, Isabel Rauscher3, Wolfgang P Fendler4, Vishnu Murthy5, Wang Hui3, Wesley R Armstrong5, Ken Herrmann4, Wolfgang A Weber3, Jeremie Calais5, Matthias Eiber3, Manuel Weber4, Matthias R Benz5,6. 1. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 200 Medical Plaza, Suite B114-61, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. agafita@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Munich, Germany. agafita@mednet.ucla.edu. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 200 Medical Plaza, Suite B114-61, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. 6. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the adapted Prostate Cancer Working Group Criteria 3 (aPCWG3), the adapted Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (aPERCIST), the PSMA PET Progression (PPP), and the Response Evaluation Criteria In PSMA-Imaging (RECIP) 1.0 for response evaluation using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy. METHODS: A total of 124 patients were included in this multicenter retrospective study. All patients received 177Lu-PSMA and underwent PSMA-PET/CT scans at baseline (bPET) and at 12 weeks (iPET). Imaging responses according to RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST, PPP, and RECIP 1.0 were interpreted by consensus among three blinded readers. Changes in total tumor burden were obtained using the semi-automatic qPSMA software. The response according to each criterion was classified to progressive disease (PD) vs no-PD. Primary outcome measure was the prognostic value (by Cox regression analysis) for overall survival (OS). Secondary outcome measure was the inter-reader reliability (by Cohen's κ coefficient). RESULTS: A total of 43 (35%) of patients had non-measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1. Sixteen (13%), 66 (52%), 72 (58%), 69 (56%), and 39 (32%) of 124 patients had PD according to RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST, PPP, and RECIP, respectively. PD vs no-PD had significantly higher risk of death according to aPCWG3 (HR = 2.37; 95%CI, 1.62-3.48; p < 0.001), aPERCIST (HR = 2.48; 95%CI, 1.68-3.66; p < 0.001), PPP (HR = 2.72; 95%CI, 1.85-4.01; p < 0.001), RECIP 1.0 (HR = 4.33; 95%CI, 2.80-6.70; p < 0.001), but not according to RECIST 1.1 (HR = 1.29; 95%CI, 0.73-2.27; p = 0.38). The κ index of RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST 1.0, PPP, and RECIP 1.0 for identifying PD vs no-PD were 0.50 (95%CI, 0.32-0.76), 0.72 (95%CI, 0.63-0.82), 0.68 (95%CI, 0.63-0.73), 0.73 (95%CI, 0.63-0.83), and 0.83 (95%CI, 0.77-0.88), respectively. CONCLUSION: PSMA-PET-specific criteria for early response evaluation in men with mCRPC treated with 177Lu-PSMA achieved higher prognostic values and inter-reader reliabilities in comparison to conventional CT assessment or to criteria adapted to PSMA-PET from other imaging modalities. RECIP 1.0 identified the fewest patients with PD and achieved the highest risk of death for PD vs. no-PD, suggesting that other classification methods tend to overcall progression. Prospective validation of our findings on an independent patient cohort is warranted.
PURPOSE: To compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the adapted Prostate Cancer Working Group Criteria 3 (aPCWG3), the adapted Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (aPERCIST), the PSMA PET Progression (PPP), and the Response Evaluation Criteria In PSMA-Imaging (RECIP) 1.0 for response evaluation using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy. METHODS: A total of 124 patients were included in this multicenter retrospective study. All patients received 177Lu-PSMA and underwent PSMA-PET/CT scans at baseline (bPET) and at 12 weeks (iPET). Imaging responses according to RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST, PPP, and RECIP 1.0 were interpreted by consensus among three blinded readers. Changes in total tumor burden were obtained using the semi-automatic qPSMA software. The response according to each criterion was classified to progressive disease (PD) vs no-PD. Primary outcome measure was the prognostic value (by Cox regression analysis) for overall survival (OS). Secondary outcome measure was the inter-reader reliability (by Cohen's κ coefficient). RESULTS: A total of 43 (35%) of patients had non-measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1. Sixteen (13%), 66 (52%), 72 (58%), 69 (56%), and 39 (32%) of 124 patients had PD according to RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST, PPP, and RECIP, respectively. PD vs no-PD had significantly higher risk of death according to aPCWG3 (HR = 2.37; 95%CI, 1.62-3.48; p < 0.001), aPERCIST (HR = 2.48; 95%CI, 1.68-3.66; p < 0.001), PPP (HR = 2.72; 95%CI, 1.85-4.01; p < 0.001), RECIP 1.0 (HR = 4.33; 95%CI, 2.80-6.70; p < 0.001), but not according to RECIST 1.1 (HR = 1.29; 95%CI, 0.73-2.27; p = 0.38). The κ index of RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST 1.0, PPP, and RECIP 1.0 for identifying PD vs no-PD were 0.50 (95%CI, 0.32-0.76), 0.72 (95%CI, 0.63-0.82), 0.68 (95%CI, 0.63-0.73), 0.73 (95%CI, 0.63-0.83), and 0.83 (95%CI, 0.77-0.88), respectively. CONCLUSION: PSMA-PET-specific criteria for early response evaluation in men with mCRPC treated with 177Lu-PSMA achieved higher prognostic values and inter-reader reliabilities in comparison to conventional CT assessment or to criteria adapted to PSMA-PET from other imaging modalities. RECIP 1.0 identified the fewest patients with PD and achieved the highest risk of death for PD vs. no-PD, suggesting that other classification methods tend to overcall progression. Prospective validation of our findings on an independent patient cohort is warranted.
Authors: Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Walter M Stadler; Celestia Higano; Ethan Basch; Karim Fizazi; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Tomasz M Beer; Michael A Carducci; Kim N Chi; Paul G Corn; Johann S de Bono; Robert Dreicer; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Maha Hussain; Wm Kevin Kelly; Glenn Liu; Christopher Logothetis; David Nanus; Mark N Stein; Dana E Rathkopf; Susan F Slovin; Charles J Ryan; Oliver Sartor; Eric J Small; Matthew Raymond Smith; Cora N Sternberg; Mary-Ellen Taplin; George Wilding; Peter S Nelson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Marie Bieth; Markus Krönke; Giles Tetteh; Fernando Navarro; Hui Wang; Elisabeth Günther; Bjoern Menze; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael S Hofman; Louise Emmett; Shahneen Sandhu; Amir Iravani; Anthony M Joshua; Jeffrey C Goh; David A Pattison; Thean Hsiang Tan; Ian D Kirkwood; Siobhan Ng; Roslyn J Francis; Craig Gedye; Natalie K Rutherford; Andrew Weickhardt; Andrew M Scott; Sze-Ting Lee; Edmond M Kwan; Arun A Azad; Shakher Ramdave; Andrew D Redfern; William Macdonald; Alex Guminski; Edward Hsiao; Wei Chua; Peter Lin; Alison Y Zhang; Margaret M McJannett; Martin R Stockler; John A Violet; Scott G Williams; Andrew J Martin; Ian D Davis Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lawrence H Schwartz; Saskia Litière; Elisabeth de Vries; Robert Ford; Stephen Gwyther; Sumithra Mandrekar; Lalitha Shankar; Jan Bogaerts; Alice Chen; Janet Dancey; Wendy Hayes; F Stephen Hodi; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Nancy Lin; Yan Liu; Patrick Therasse; Jedd D Wolchok; Lesley Seymour Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Jeremie Calais; Tristan R Grogan; Boris Hadaschik; Hui Wang; Manuel Weber; Shahneen Sandhu; Clemens Kratochwil; Rouzbeh Esfandiari; Robert Tauber; Anna Zeldin; Hendrik Rathke; Wesley R Armstrong; Andrew Robertson; Pan Thin; Calogero D'Alessandria; Matthew B Rettig; Ebrahim S Delpassand; Uwe Haberkorn; David Elashoff; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Michael S Hofman; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Louise Emmett; Judit A Adam; Jamshed Bomanji; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael S Hofman; Thomas A Hope; Rakesh Kumar; Steven P Rowe; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexander Wurzer; Daniel Di Carlo; Alexander Schmidt; Roswitha Beck; Matthias Eiber; Markus Schwaiger; Hans-Jürgen Wester Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Roslyn J Francis; Colin Tang; Ian Vela; Paul Thomas; Natalie Rutherford; Jarad M Martin; Mark Frydenberg; Ramdave Shakher; Lih-Ming Wong; Kim Taubman; Sze Ting Lee; Edward Hsiao; Paul Roach; Michelle Nottage; Ian Kirkwood; Dickon Hayne; Emma Link; Petra Marusic; Anetta Matera; Alan Herschtal; Amir Iravani; Rodney J Hicks; Scott Williams; Declan G Murphy Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-22 Impact factor: 79.321