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

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Virginia Liberini, Marco Rubatto, Riccardo Mimmo, Roberto Passera, Francesco Ceci, Paolo Fava, Luca Tonella, Giulia Polverari, Adriana Lesca, Marilena Bellò, Vincenzo Arena, Simone Ribero, Pietro Quaglino, Désirée Deandreis
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: MDPI AG 2021
Materias:
R
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/066e395753a74684b6a1ceafa6566f8f
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
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 <i>p</i> < 0.037) in the whole-cohort and target subgroup and MTVwb and TLGwb (all <i>p</i> < 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 <i>p</i> < 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.