Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell ...

CLINICAL TRIALS AND OBSERVATIONS| JUNE 18, 2020

Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell lymphoma: results from the CALGB 50303 Clinical Trial

Heiko Schöder, Mei-Yin C. Polley, Michael V. Knopp, Nathan Hall, Lale Kostakoglu, Jun Zhang, Howard R. Higley, Gary Kelloff, Heshan Liu, Andrew D. Zelenetz, Bruce D. Cheson, Nina Wagner-Johnston, Brad S. Kahl, Jonathan W. Friedberg, Eric D. Hsi, John P. Leonard, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Wyndham H. Wilson, Nancy L. Bartlett

Blood (2020) 135 (25): 2224–2234.

https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2019003277

Key Points

In this phase 3 prospective clinical trial, ΔSUV on i-PET predicted OS in large cell lymphoma.

With appropriate standardization, ΔSUV may be an imaging biomarker that can help guide clinical trials using PET response-adapted therapy.

Abstract

As part of a randomized, prospective clinical trial in large cell lymphoma, we conducted serial fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) at baseline, after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (interim PET [i-PET]), and at end of treatment (EoT) to identify biomarkers of response that are predictive of remission and survival. Scans were interpreted in a core laboratory by 2 imaging experts, using the visual Deauville 5-point scale (5-PS), and by calculating percent change in FDG uptake (change in standardized uptake value [ΔSUV]). Visual scores of 1 through 3 and ΔSUV ≥66% were prospectively defined as negative. Of 524 patients enrolled in the parent trial, 169 agreed to enroll in the PET substudy and 158 were eligible for final analysis. In this selected population, all had FDG-avid disease at baseline; by 5-PS, 55 (35%) remained positive on i-PET and 28 (18%) on EoT PET. Median ΔSUV on i-PET was 86.2%. With a median follow-up of 5 years, ΔSUV, as continuous variable, was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.00; P = .02) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = .03). ΔSUV ≥66% was predictive of OS (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.85; P = .02) but not PFS (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.19-1.13; P = .09). Visual 5-PS on i-PET did not predict outcome. ΔSUV, but not visual analysis, on i-PET predicted OS in DLBCL, although the low number of events limited the statistical analysis. These data may help guide future clinical trials using PET response-adapted therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00118209.

Subjects:

Clinical Trials and Observations, Lymphoid Neoplasia

Topics:

diagnostic imaging, diffuse large b-cell lymphoma, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, pet animal, positron-emission tomography, fluorodeoxyglucose f18, biological markers

REFERENCES

1.Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(suppl 1):97-110.

2.Johnson SA, Kumar A, Matasar MJ, Schöder H, Rademaker J. Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology. 2015;276(2):323-338.

3.Moskowitz CH, Schöder H. Current status of the role of PET imaging in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Semin Hematol. 2015;52(2):138-142.

4.Gallamini A, Zwarthoed C. Interim FDG-PET imaging in lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48(1):17-27.

5.Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the first international workshop on interim-PET-scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50(8):1257-1260.

6.Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S-150S.

7.Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3048-3058.

8.Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al; United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3059-3068.

9.Mamot C, Klingbiel D, Hitz F, et al. Final results of a prospective evaluation of the predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP-14 (SAKK 38/07). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2523-2529.

10.Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al; Groupe d』étude des lymphomes de l』adulte (GELA). SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118(1):37-43.

11.Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, et al. 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):1626-1632.

12.Bartlett NL, Wilson WH, Jung SH, et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH-R compared with R-CHOP as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: clinical outcomes of the phase III intergroup trial alliance/CALGB 50303. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(21):1790-1799.

13.Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):414-419.

14.Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(9):1356-1363.

15.Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):235-242.

16.Vose JM, Link BK, Grossbard ML, et al. Phase II study of rituximab in combination with chop chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated, aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):389-397.

17.Wilson WH, Grossbard ML, Pittaluga S, et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH chemotherapy for untreated large B-cell lymphomas: a pharmacodynamic approach with high efficacy. Blood. 2002;99(8):2685-2693.

18.Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(9):1312-1320.

19.Korn EL. Censoring distributions as a measure of follow-up in survival analysis. Stat Med. 1986;5(3):255-260.

20.Dührsen U, Müller S, Hertenstein B, et al; PETAL Trial Investigators. Positron emission tomography-guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (PETAL): a multicenter, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2024-2034.

21.Casasnovas RO, Ysebaert L, Thieblemont C, et al. FDG-PET-driven consolidation strategy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: final results of a randomized phase 2 study. Blood. 2017;130(11):1315-1326.

22.Dupuis J, Itti E, Rahmouni A, et al. Response assessment after an inductive CHOP or CHOP-like regimen with or without rituximab in 103 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: integrating 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to the International Workshop Criteria. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(3):503-507.

23.Mikhaeel NG, Smith D, Dunn JT, et al. Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(7):1209-1219.

24.Safar V, Dupuis J, Itti E, et al. Interim [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(2):184-190.

25.Kaalep A, Sera T, Oyen W, et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(3):412-422.

26.de Oliveira Costa R, Hallack Neto A, Siqueira S, et al. Interim fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET-computed tomography and cell of origin by immunohistochemistry predicts progression-free and overall survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in the rituximab era. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(10):1095-1101.

27.Pregno P, Chiappella A, Bellò M, et al. Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP. Blood. 2012;119(9):2066-2073.

28.Schöder H, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(Suppl 1):72S-81S.

29.Carr R, Fanti S, Paez D, et al; IAEA Lymphoma Study Group. Prospective international cohort study demonstrates inability of interim PET to predict treatment failure in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(12):1936-1944.

30.Burggraaff CN, de Jong A, Hoekstra OS, et al. Predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(1):65-79.

31.Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(5):683-690.

32.Coiffier B, Thieblemont C, Van Den Neste E, et al. Long-term outcome of patients in the LNH-98.5 trial, the first randomized study comparing rituximab-CHOP to standard CHOP chemotherapy in DLBCL patients: a study by the Groupe d』Etudes des Lymphomes de l』Adulte. Blood. 2010;116(12):2040-2045.

33.Feugier P, Van Hoof A, Sebban C, et al. Long-term results of the R-CHOP study in the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a study by the Groupe d』Etude des Lymphomes de l』Adulte. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(18):4117-4126.

34.Advani R, Flinn I, Popplewell L, et al. CD47 blockade by Hu5F9-G4 and rituximab in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1711-1721.

35.Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(26):2531-2544.

36.Schuster SJ, Svoboda J, Chong EA, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells in refractory B-cell lymphomas. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(26):2545-2554.

37.Cunanan K, Polley MC. A simulation-based evaluation of sample size methods for biomarker studies. Int J Stat Med Res. 2018;7(4):106-116.

38.Schoenfeld DA. Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics. 1983;39(2):499-503.

39.Schöder H, Moskowitz C. Metabolic tumor volume in lymphoma: hype or hope? J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(30):3591-3594.

40.Xu-Monette ZY, Xiao M, Au Q, et al. Immune profiling and quantitative analysis decipher the clinical role of immune checkpoint expression in the tumor immune microenvironment of DLBCL. Cancer Immunol Res. 2019;7(4):644-657.

41.Kurtz DM, Scherer F, Jin MC, et al. Circulating tumor DNA measurements as early outcome predictors in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(28):2845-2853.

This program is developed by Focus Insight with the permission of American Society of Hematology, Inc. The content are excerpted from the journal Blood. Copyright © 2019 The American Society of Hematology. All rights reserved. 「American Society of Hematology」, 「ASH」 and the ASH Logo are registered trademarks of the American Society of Hematology.