Cargando…

Predictive Value of Baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT for Response to Systemic Therapy in Patients with Advanced Melanoma

Background/Aim: To evaluate the association between baseline [18F]FDG-PET/CT tumor burden parameters and disease progression rate after first-line target therapy or immunotherapy in advanced melanoma patients. Materials and Methods: Forty four melanoma patients, who underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT before...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liberini, Virginia, Rubatto, Marco, Mimmo, Riccardo, Passera, Roberto, Ceci, Francesco, Fava, Paolo, Tonella, Luca, Polverari, Giulia, Lesca, Adriana, Bellò, Marilena, Arena, Vincenzo, Ribero, Simone, Quaglino, Pietro, Deandreis, Désirée
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8584809/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34768517
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214994
Descripción
Sumario:Background/Aim: To evaluate the association between baseline [18F]FDG-PET/CT tumor burden parameters and disease progression rate after first-line target therapy or immunotherapy in advanced melanoma patients. Materials and Methods: Forty four melanoma patients, who underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT before first-line target therapy (28/44) or immunotherapy (16/44), were retrospectively analyzed. Whole-body and per-district metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were calculated. Therapy response was assessed according to RECIST 1.1 on CT scan at 3 (early) and 12 (late) months. PET parameters were compared using the Mann–Whitney test. Optimal cut-offs for predicting progression were defined using the ROC curve. PFS and OS were studied using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: Median (IQR) MTVwb and TLGwb were 13.1 mL and 72.4, respectively. Non-responder patients were 38/44, 26/28 and 12/16 at early evaluation, and 33/44, 21/28 and 12/16 at late evaluation in the whole-cohort, target, and immunotherapy subgroup, respectively. At late evaluation, MTVbone and TLGbone were higher in non-responders compared to responder patients (all p < 0.037) in the whole-cohort and target subgroup and MTVwb and TLGwb (all p < 0.022) in target subgroup. No significant differences were found for the immunotherapy subgroup. No metabolic parameters were able to predict PFS. Controversially, MTVlfn, TLGlfn, MTVsoft + lfn, TLGsoft + lfn, MTVwb and TLGwb were significantly associated (all p < 0.05) with OS in both the whole-cohort and target therapy subgroup. Conclusions: Higher values of whole-body and bone metabolic parameters were correlated with poorer outcome, while higher values of whole-body, lymph node and soft tissue metabolic parameters were correlated with OS.