[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in Thoracic Malignancies

False Positive Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) Requiring Biopsy for Proper Staging of Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in developed countries. Staging is crucial in determining the treatment modality. Different treatment modalities for lung cancer include surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. PET/CT is the most sensitive and accurate modality for detecting hilar, mediastinal, and metastatic disease except in the brain. PET/CT scan often upstages the disease. PET/CT has also been shown to have false positive results. We present the case of a 72-year-old female who had a false positive finding on PET/CT, which would have changed the management process and outcome of her disease.

miRNAs in lung cancer. A systematic review identifies predictive and prognostic miRNA candidates for precision medicine in lung cancer

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and miRNAs play a key role in LC development. To better diagnose LC and to predict drug treatment responses we evaluated 228 articles encompassing 16,697 patients and 12,582 healthy controls. Based on the criteria of ≥3 independent studies and a sensitivity and specificity of >0.8 we found blood-borne miR-20a, miR-10b, miR-150, and miR-223 to be excellent diagnostic biomarkers for non-small cell LC whereas miR-205 is specific for squamous cell carcinoma. The systematic review also revealed 38 commonly regulated miRNAs in tumor tissue and the circulation, thus enabling the prediction of histological subtypes of LC. Moreover, theranostic biomarker candidates with proven responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitor treatments were identified, notably miR-34a, miR-93, miR-106b, miR-181a, miR-193a-3p, and miR-375. Conversely, miR-103a-3p, miR-152, miR-152-3p, miR-15b, miR-16, miR-194, miR-34b, and miR-506 influence programmed cell death-ligand 1 and programmed cell death-1 receptor expression, therefore providing a rationale for the development of molecularly targeted therapies. Furthermore, miR-21, miR-25, miR-27b, miR-19b, miR-125b, miR-146a, and miR-210 predicted response to platinum-based treatments. We also highlight controversial reports on specific miRNAs. In conclusion, we report diagnostic miRNA biomarkers for in-depth clinical evaluation. Furthermore, in an effort to avoid unnecessary toxicity we propose predictive biomarkers. The biomarker candidates support personalized treatment decisions of LC patients and await their confirmation in randomized clinical trials.

PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues

Positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) has long been discussed as a promising modality for response evaluation in cancer. When designing respective clinical trials, several design issues have to be addressed, especially the number/timing of PET/CT scans, the approach for quantifying metabolic activity, and the final translation of measurements into a rule. It is unclear how well these issues have been tackled in quest of an optimised use of PET/CT in response evaluation. Medline via Ovid and Science Citation Index via Web of Science were systematically searched for articles from 2015 on cancer patients scanned with PET/CT before and during/after treatment. Reports were categorised as being either developmental or evaluative, i.e. focusing on either the establishment or the evaluation of a rule discriminating responders from non-responders. Of 124 included papers, 112 (90 %) were accuracy and/or prognostic studies; the remainder were response-curve studies. No randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were prospective (62 %) and from single centres (85 %); median number of patients was 38.5 (range 5-354). Most (69 %) of the studies employed only one post-baseline scan. Quantification was mainly based on SUVmax (91 %), while change over time was most frequently used to combine measurements into a rule (79 %). Half of the reports were categorised as developmental, the other half evaluative. Most development studies assessed only one element (35/62, 56 %), most frequently the choice of cut-off points (25/62, 40 %). In summary, the majority of studies did not address the essential open issues in establishing PET/CT for response evaluation. Reasonably sized multicentre studies are needed to systematically compare the many different options when using PET/CT for response evaluation.