| Literature DB >> 36012657 |
Noboru Oriuchi1,2, Hideki Endoh3, Kyoichi Kaira4.
Abstract
Evaluation of cancer therapy with imaging is crucial as a surrogate marker of effectiveness and survival. The unique response patterns to therapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors have facilitated the revision of response evaluation criteria using FDG-PET, because the immune response recalls reactive cells such as activated T-cells and macrophages, which show increased glucose metabolism and apparent progression on morphological imaging. Cellular metabolism and function are critical determinants of the viability of active cells in the tumor microenvironment, which would be novel targets of therapies, such as tumor immunity, metabolism, and genetic mutation. Considering tumor heterogeneity and variation in therapy response specific to the mechanisms of therapy, appropriate response evaluation is required. Radiomics approaches, which combine objective image features with a machine learning algorithm as well as pathologic and genetic data, have remarkably progressed over the past decade, and PET radiomics has increased quality and reliability based on the prosperous publications and standardization initiatives. PET and multimodal imaging will play a definitive role in personalized therapeutic strategies by the precise monitoring in future cancer therapy.Entities:
Keywords: FDG-PET; immune-checkpoint inhibitors artificial intelligence; immunotherapy; machine learning; metabolism; radiomics; tumor heterogeneity; tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36012657 PMCID: PMC9409366 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23169394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Conventional/immune-related response evaluation criteria and response evaluation criteria using FDG-PET for solid tumors.
| Criteria | Measurement | CMR/CR | PMR/PR | PMD/PD | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RECIST 1.1 | Unidimensional (LD for non-nodal lesions; LPD for LN) | Disappearance of all target lesions < 10 mm for any pathological LN | ≥30% reduction | ≥20% and ≥5 mm increase, new lesion, or non-target PD | [ |
| irRECIST | Unidimensional (LD for non-nodal lesions; LPD for LN) | Disappearance of all target lesions | ≥30% reduction | ≥20% and ≥5 mm increase, or non-target PD | [ |
| iRECIST | Unidimensional (LD for non-nodal lesions; LPD for LN) | Disappearance of all target lesions | ≥ 30% reduction | ≥20% and ≥5 mm increase, or non-target PD, new lesion confirmed at the next assessment | [ |
| EORTC | SUVmax | Complete resolution of FDG uptake in all lesions | >25% reduction in the sum of SUVmax after more than one cycle of treatment | >25% increase in the sum of SUVmax or appearance of new lesions | [ |
| PERCIST | SULpeak | Complete resolution of FDG uptake in all lesions | ≥30% reduction of SULpeak and an absolute drop of 0.8 SULpeak units | >30% increase in SULpeak and an absolute increase of 0.8 SULpeak, or appearance of new lesions | [ |
| imPERCIST | SULpeak | Complete resolution of FDG uptake in all lesions | ≥30% reduction of SULpeak and an absolute drop of 0.8 SULpeak units | >30% increase in SULpeak and an absolute increase of 0.8 SULpeak, or new lesions included in the sum of SULpeak | [ |
FDG-PET, 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography; RECIST, response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; irRECIST, immune-related RECIST; iRECIST, immune RECIST; EORTC, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; PERCIST, PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors; imPERCIST, immunotherapy-modified PERCIST; CMR/CR, complete metabolic response/complete response; PMR/PR, partial metabolic response/partial response; PMD/PD, progressive metabolic disease/progressive disease; LD, largest diameter; LPD, largest perpendicular diameter; LN, lymph nodes; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; SULpeak, peak lean body mass standardized uptake value.
Relationship among PD-L1 expression, TILs, and FDG uptake in various cancer types.
| Cancer Type | Histology | No. of Patients | Correlation between FDG Uptake and PD-L1 Expression | Correlation between FDG Uptake and TILs | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lung cancer | SCC/AC/other | 579 | <0.001 (SP142) | NA | [ |
| Lung cancer | SCC | 167 | 0.02 (E1L3N) | Not significant | [ |
| Lung cancer | AC | 315 | 0.01 (E1L3N/38-8) | Not significant | [ |
| Lung cancer | SCC | 84 | 0.035 (28-8) | NA | [ |
| Bladder cancer | UC/SCC/SRC | 63 | 0.032 (NA) | NA | [ |
| Lung cancer | SCLC | 98 | 0.36 (E1L3N) | Significant | [ |
| Lung cancer | SCC/AC | 362 | 0.001 (28-1) | NA | [ |
| Colon cancer | AC | 65 | 0.001 (28-8) | NA | [ |
| Lung cancer | SCC/AC | 122 | 0.012 (NA) | Significant | [ |
| NPC | SCC | 84 | <0.001 (SP263) | NA | [ |
| OSCC | SCC | 59 | 0.003 (28/8) | Not significant | [ |
| Breast cancer | AC | 97 | <0.001 (28-8) | Significant | [ |
PD-L1, programmed death ligand-1; FDG, 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose; TILs, tumor infiltrative lymphocytes; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; SCLC, small cell lung cancer; UC, urothelial cancer; SRC, signet ring cell carcinoma; NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; OSCC, oral squamous cell carcinoma; NA, not applicable.