4.6 Article

Predicting Response to Immunotherapy by Evaluating Tumors, Lymphoid Cell-Rich Organs, and Immune-Related Adverse Events Using FDG-PET/CT

期刊

CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 E272-E279

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002453

关键词

immune checkpoint inhibitors; F-18-FDG-PET/CT; IRAE; outcome; tumor response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To investigate whether the evaluation of tumors, lymphoid cell-rich organs, and immune-related adverse events (IRAE) with F-18-FDG PET/CT can predict the efficacy and outcome of immunotherapy. Methods Forty patients who underwent F-18-FDG-PET/CT scans before and after therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors from December 2013 to December 2016 were retrospectively enrolled (malignant melanoma, n = 21; malignant lymphoma, n = 11; renal cell carcinoma, n = 8). SUVmax of the baseline and first restaging scans were evaluated in tumors, spleen, bone marrow, thyroid and pituitary glands, and were correlated to best overall response in the first year after therapy; IRAE-affected areas were also evaluated. Results Interval change between the baseline and first restaging scans showed that patients with a clinical benefit had a significant decrease in tumor parameters (P < 0.001). All patients with an increase of SUVmax in the thyroid of more than 1.5 (n = 5) on the first restaging scan had a complete response (CR) in 1 year. Patients with CR within 1 year (n = 22) were significantly associated with a favorable long-term outcome (P = 0.002). Nine patients with IRAE findings had CR at final evaluation. Among IRAE, thyroiditis was seen significantly earlier than arthritis (P = 0.040). Conclusions The decrease of tumor parameters at early time-point PET scans was seen in patients with immunotherapy who had clinical benefit within 1 year. PET-detectable IRAE was useful for prediction of a favorable outcome. Early development of thyroiditis may particularly represent an early response indicator to immunotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据