4.7 Article

89Zr-Bevacizumab PET: Potential Early Indicator of Everolimus Efficacy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 905-910

出版社

SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.183475

关键词

molecular imaging; positron emission tomography; renal cell carcinoma; everolimus; biomarker

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Dutch Cancer Society [RUG 2012-5565]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, biomarkers that predict the efficacy of everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are lacking. Everolimus inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) expression. We performed PET scans on mRCC patients with Zr-89-bevacizumab, a VEGF-A-binding antibody tracer. The aims were to determine a change in tumor tracer uptake after the start of everolimus and to explore whether Zr-89-bevacizumab PET can identify patients with early disease progression. Methods: Zr-89-bevacizumab PET was done before and 2 and 6 wk after the start of everolimus, 10 mg/d, in mRCC patients. Routine CT scans were performed at baseline and every 3 mo thereafter. Tumor tracer uptake was quantified using SUVmax. The endpoints were a change in tumor tracer uptake and treatment response on CT after 3 mo. Results: Thirteen patients participated. The median SUVmax of 94 tumor lesions was 7.3(range, 1.6-59.5). Between patients, median tumor SUVmax varied up to 8-fold. After 2 wk, median SUVmax was 6.3 (1.7-62.3), corresponding to a mean decrease of 9.1% (P < 0.0001). Three patients discontinued everolimus early. At 6 wk, a mean decrease in SUVmax of 23.4% compared with baseline was found in 70 evaluable lesions of 10 patients, with a median SUVmax of 5.4 (1.1-49.4, P < 0.0001). All 10 patients who continued treatment had stable disease at 3 mo. Conclusion: Everolimus decreases Zr-89-bevacizumab tumor uptake. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the predictive value of Zr-89-bevacizumab PET for everolimus antitumor efficacy.

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

4.7
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