» Articles » PMID: 36799072

Is Local Review of Positron Emission Tomography Scans Sufficient in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma Clinical Trials? A CALGB 50303 Analysis

Abstract

Background: Quantitative 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).

Methods: In 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.

Results: Agreement 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.

Conclusions: These 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.

Citing Articles

Quantitative evaluation of lesion response heterogeneity for superior prognostication of clinical outcome.

Lokre O, Perk T, Weisman A, Munian Govindan R, Chen S, Chen M Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024; 51(12):3505-3517.

PMID: 38819668 PMC: 11445285. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06764-0.


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

Torka P, Pederson L, Knopp M, Poon D, Zhang J, Kahl B Cancer Med. 2023; 12(7):8211-8217.

PMID: 36799072 PMC: 10134372. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5628.

References
1.
Zijlstra J, Comans E, Van Lingen A, Hoekstra O, Gundy C, Coebergh J . FDG PET in lymphoma: the need for standardization of interpretation. An observer variation study. Nucl Med Commun. 2007; 28(10):798-803. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3282eff2d5. View

2.
Amit O, Mannino F, Stone A, Bushnell W, Denne J, Helterbrand J . Blinded independent central review of progression in cancer clinical trials: results from a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47(12):1772-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.02.013. View

3.
Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C . Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009; 50(8):1257-60. DOI: 10.1080/10428190903040048. View

4.
Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J . Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48(10):1626-32. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.042093. View

5.
Horning S, Juweid M, Schoder H, Wiseman G, McMillan A, Swinnen L . Interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an independent expert nuclear medicine evaluation of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E3404 study. Blood. 2009; 115(4):775-7. PMC: 2815514. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-08-234351. View