Zahra Kiamanesh1, Narjess Ayati2,3, Ramin Sadeghi1, Eliza Hawkes3,4,5,6, Sze Ting Lee3,4,7, Andrew M Scott8,9,10. 1. Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ultrasound & PET, Sydney Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Medical Oncology & Clinical Haematology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 6. School of Public Health & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Molecular Imaging & Therapy, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia. 8. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia. andrew.scott@austin.org.au. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. andrew.scott@austin.org.au. 10. Department of Molecular Imaging & Therapy, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia. andrew.scott@austin.org.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment strategies of lymphoid malignancies have been revolutionized by immunotherapy. Because of the inherent property of Hodgkin lymphoma and some subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a highly FDG-avid tumor, functional 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is already embedded in their routine care. Nevertheless, the question is whether it is still valuable in the context of these tumors being treated with immunotherapy. Herein, we will review the value of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging lymphoid tumors treated with immunotherapy regimens. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database was conducted on the value of the 18F-FDG PET/CT for immunotherapy response monitoring of patients with malignant lymphoma. The articles were considered eligible if they met all of the following inclusion criteria: (a) clinical studies on patients with different types of malignant lymphoma, (b) treatment with anti-CD20 antibodies, immune checkpoint inhibitors or immune cell therapies, (c) and incorporated PET/CT with 18F-FDG as the PET tracer. RESULTS: From the initial 1488 papers identified, 91 were ultimately included in our study. In anti-CD20 therapy, the highest pooled hazard ratios (HRs) of baseline, early, and late response monitoring parameters for progression-free survival (PFS) belong to metabolic tumor volume (MTV) (3.19 (95%CI: 2.36-4.30)), maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) (3.25 (95%CI: 2.08-5.08)), and Deauville score (DS) (3.73 (95%CI: 2.50-5.56)), respectively. These measurements for overall survival (OS) were MTV (4.39 (95%CI: 2.71-7.08)), DS (3.23 (95%CI: 1.87-5.58)), and DS (3.64 (95%CI: 1.40-9.43)), respectively. Early and late 18F-FDG PET/CT response assessment in immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and immune cell therapy might be an effective tool for prediction of clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: For anti-CD20 therapy of lymphoma, the MTV as a baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT-derived parameter has the highest HRs for PFS and OS. The DS as visual criteria in early and late response assessment has higher HRs for PFS and OS compared to the international harmonization project (IHP) visual criteria in anti-CD20 therapy. Early changes in 18F-FDG PET parameters may be predictive of response to ICIs and cell therapy in lymphoma patients.
PURPOSE: Treatment strategies of lymphoid malignancies have been revolutionized by immunotherapy. Because of the inherent property of Hodgkin lymphoma and some subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a highly FDG-avid tumor, functional 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is already embedded in their routine care. Nevertheless, the question is whether it is still valuable in the context of these tumors being treated with immunotherapy. Herein, we will review the value of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging lymphoid tumors treated with immunotherapy regimens. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database was conducted on the value of the 18F-FDG PET/CT for immunotherapy response monitoring of patients with malignant lymphoma. The articles were considered eligible if they met all of the following inclusion criteria: (a) clinical studies on patients with different types of malignant lymphoma, (b) treatment with anti-CD20 antibodies, immune checkpoint inhibitors or immune cell therapies, (c) and incorporated PET/CT with 18F-FDG as the PET tracer. RESULTS: From the initial 1488 papers identified, 91 were ultimately included in our study. In anti-CD20 therapy, the highest pooled hazard ratios (HRs) of baseline, early, and late response monitoring parameters for progression-free survival (PFS) belong to metabolic tumor volume (MTV) (3.19 (95%CI: 2.36-4.30)), maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) (3.25 (95%CI: 2.08-5.08)), and Deauville score (DS) (3.73 (95%CI: 2.50-5.56)), respectively. These measurements for overall survival (OS) were MTV (4.39 (95%CI: 2.71-7.08)), DS (3.23 (95%CI: 1.87-5.58)), and DS (3.64 (95%CI: 1.40-9.43)), respectively. Early and late 18F-FDG PET/CT response assessment in immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and immune cell therapy might be an effective tool for prediction of clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: For anti-CD20 therapy of lymphoma, the MTV as a baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT-derived parameter has the highest HRs for PFS and OS. The DS as visual criteria in early and late response assessment has higher HRs for PFS and OS compared to the international harmonization project (IHP) visual criteria in anti-CD20 therapy. Early changes in 18F-FDG PET parameters may be predictive of response to ICIs and cell therapy in lymphoma patients.
Authors: Hugo J A Adams; John M H de Klerk; Rob Fijnheer; Ben G F Heggelman; Stefan V Dubois; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Thomas C Kwee Journal: Eur J Haematol Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Andrew D Zelenetz; Gilles Salles; Kylie D Mason; Carla Casulo; Steven Le Gouill; Laurie H Sehn; Herve Tilly; Guillaume Cartron; Martine E D Chamuleau; Andre Goy; Constantine S Tam; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Adam M Petrich; Arijit Sinha; Divya Samineni; Sylvia Herter; Ellen Ingalla; Edith Szafer-Glusman; Christian Klein; Deepak Sampath; Martin Kornacker; Mehrdad Mobasher; Franck Morschhauser Journal: Blood Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Salvatore Annunziata; Annarosa Cuccaro; Maria Chiara Tisi; Stefan Hohaus; Vittoria Rufini Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Marion Baudard; Frederic Comte; Anne Marie Conge; Denis Mariano-Goulart; Bernard Klein; Jean François Rossi Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2007-02
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Stephen Ansell; Larry Schwartz; Leo I Gordon; Ranjana Advani; Heather A Jacene; Axel Hoos; Sally F Barrington; Philippe Armand Journal: Blood Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 22.113