Pretreatment Tumor 18F-FDG Uptake Improves Risk Stratification Beyond RECIST 1.1 in Patients With Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: FDG Uptake and Risk Stratification

The impact of PET/CT and brain MRI for metastasis detection among patients with clinical T1-category lung cancer: Findings from a large-scale cohort study

PURPOSE

[18F]-FDG PET/CT and brain MRI are common approaches to detect metastasis in patients of lung cancer. Current guidelines for the use of PET/CT and MRI in clinical T1-category lung cancer lack risk-based stratification and require optimization. This study stratified patients based on metastatic risk in terms of the lesions' size and morphological characteristics.

METHODS

The detection rate of metastasis was measured in different sizes and morphological characteristics (solid and sub-solid) of tumors. To confirm the cut-off value for discriminating metastasis and overall survival (OS) prediction, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed based on PET/CT metabolic parameters (SUVmax/SUVmean/SULpeak/MTV/TLG), followed by Kaplan-Meier analysis for survival in post-operation patients with and without PET/CT plus MRI.

RESULTS

2,298 patients were included. No metastasis was observed in patients with solid nodules < 8.0 mm and sub-solid nodules < 10.0 mm. The cut-off of PET/CT metabolic parameters on discriminating metastasis were 1.09 (SUVmax), 0.26 (SUVmean), 0.31 (SULpeak), 0.55 (MTV), and 0.81 (TLG), respectively. Patients undergoing PET/CT plus MRI exhibited longer OS compared to those who did not receive it in solid nodules ≥ 8.0 mm & sub-solid nodules ≥ 10.0 mm (HR, 0.44; p < 0.001); in solid nodules ≥ 8.0 mm (HR, 0.12; p<0.001) and in sub-solid nodules ≥ 10.0 mm (HR; 0.61; p=0.075), respectively. Compared to patients with metabolic parameters lower than cut-off values, patients with higher metabolic parameters displayed shorter OS: SUVmax (HR, 12.94; p < 0.001), SUVmean (HR, 11.33; p <0.001), SULpeak (HR, 9.65; p < 0.001), MTV (HR, 9.16; p = 0.031), and TLG (HR, 12.06; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The necessity of PET/CT and MRI should be cautiously evaluated in patients with solid nodules < 8.0 mm and sub-solid nodules < 10.0 mm, however, these examinations remained essential and beneficial for patients with solid nodules ≥ 8.0 mm and sub-solid nodules ≥ 10.0 mm.

Comparison of RECIST, iRECIST, and PERCIST for the Evaluation of Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade Therapy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the immune RECIST (iRECIST) criteria, and the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) 1.0 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death protein 1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors.

METHODS

This prospective study of 42 patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was approved by our institutional review board, and all patients gave written, informed consent. Tumor burden dynamics were assessed on F-FDG PET/CT before and after treatment initiation. Immunotherapeutic responses were evaluated according to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and PERCIST 1.0 for the dichotomous groups, responders versus nonresponders. Cohen κ and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate concordance among these criteria. We assessed progression-free survival and overall survival using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

RESULTS

The RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 response classifications were discordant in 6 patients (14.2%; κ = 0.581). RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were discordant in 2 patients, who evidenced pseudoprogression after treatment initiation. Median progression-free survival, as well as overall survival, was significantly longer for responders compared with nonresponders for all criteria (P < 0.001), with no significant difference between the 3 criteria (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 show only moderate agreement, but both can predict treatment response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy. In case of pseudoprogression, metabolic tumor activity may help to correctly classify treatment response.