Is local review of positron emission tomography scans sufficient in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma clinical trials? A CALGB 50303 analysis

Author:

Torka Pallawi1ORCID,Pederson Levi D.2ORCID,Knopp Michael V.3,Poon David3,Zhang Jun3,Kahl Brad S.4,Higley Howard R.5,Kelloff Gary6,Friedberg Jonathan W.7,Schwartz Lawrence H.8,Wilson Wyndham H.9,Leonard John P.10,Bartlett Nancy L.4,Schöder Heiko11ORCID,Ruppert Amy S.12

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine Roswell Park Cancer Comprehensive Cancer Center Buffalo New York USA

2. Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA

3. Department of Radiology The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA

4. Department of Medicine Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA

5. CCS Associates, Inc. San Jose California USA

6. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Rockville Maryland USA

7. Department of Medicine University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA

8. Department of Radiology Columbia University Medical Center New York New York USA

9. Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Rockville Maryland USA

10. Department of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College New York New York USA

11. Department of Radiology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York New York USA

12. Department of Internal Medicine The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundQuantitative methods of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG‐PET) interpretation, including the percent change in FDG uptake from baseline (ΔSUV), are under investigation in lymphoma to overcome challenges associated with visual scoring systems (VSS) such as the Deauville 5‐point scale (5‐PS).MethodsIn CALGB 50303, patients with DLBCL received frontline R‐CHOP or DA‐EPOCH‐R, and although there were no significant associations between interim PET responses assessed centrally after cycle 2 (iPET) using 5‐PS with progression‐free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), there were significant associations between central determinations of iPET ∆SUV with PFS/OS. In this patient cohort, we retrospectively compared local vs central iPET readings and evaluated associations between local imaging data and survival outcomes.ResultsAgreement between local and central review was moderate (kappa = 0.53) for VSS and high (kappa = 0.81) for ∆SUV categories (<66% vs. ≥66%). ∆SUV ≥66% at iPET was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p = 0.002), but VSS was not. Associations with PFS/OS when applying local review vs central review were comparable.ConclusionsThese data suggest that local PET interpretation for response determination may be acceptable in clinical trials. Our findings also highlight limitations of VSS and call for incorporation of more objective measures of response assessment in clinical trials.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

Amgen

AstraZeneca

GlaxoSmithKline

Johnson and Johnson

Merck

Pfizer

Wyeth

Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Cancer Research,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Oncology

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3