Prediction of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT Outcome Using Multimodality Imaging in Patients with Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results from a Prospective Phase II LUMEN Study.

Our objective was to predict the outcome of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) using multimodality imaging and tumor dosimetry on gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NET) lesions and patients. Methods: This prospective study included patients with progressive GEP-NETs. Treatment consisted of 4 cycles of 7.4 GBq of 177Lu-DOTATATE. Imaging parameters were measured on 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT (SUVmax/mean, somatostatin receptor [SSTR] tumor volume [TV], total lesion SSTR expression, and tumor-to-blood and tumor-to-spleen ratios), 18F-FDG PET/CT (SUVmax/mean, metabolically active TV, and total lesion glycolysis), and diffusion-weighted MRI (apparent diffusion coefficient) in a maximum of 5 target lesions per patient at approximately 10 wk after each injection. Tumor dosimetry was performed using SPECT/CT at 3 time points for every cycle. Baseline imaging parameters, their relative changes after PRRT cycle 1 (C1), and the tumor-absorbed dose at C1 were correlated with lesion morphologic outcome. The average values of the imaging parameters and the minimal, maximal, and mean C1 tumor-absorbed dose in each patient were tested for association with progression-free survival (PFS) and best objective response (RECIST 1.1). Results: In the 37 patients, the median PFS was 28 mo. Eleven of the 37 (30%) achieved a partial response (RECIST 1.1). After a median follow-up of 57 mo, the median time to lesion progression had not been reached in 84 morphologically evaluable lesions, with only 12 (14%) progressing (size increase ≥ 20% from baseline). Patients receiving a minimal C1 dose of 35 Gy in all target lesions exhibited a significantly longer PFS (48.1 vs. 26.2 mo; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.82; P = 0.02). Volumetric 68Ga-DOTATATE PET parameters correlated with lesion and patient outcome: patients with an SSTR TV decrease of more than 10% after C1 had a longer PFS (51.3 vs. 22.8 mo; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75; P = 0.003). There was no statistical evidence of an association between other dosimetric or imaging parameters and the lesion or patient outcome. Conclusion: Minimal tumor-absorbed dose at C1 is predictive of outcome in patients with GEP-NETs treated with PRRT, providing a basis for personalized dosimetry-guided treatment strategies. An SSTR TV decrease after C1 could be used for early therapy response assessment as a predictor of PRRT outcome.

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for Response Assessment and Outcome Prediction in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Taxane-Based Chemotherapy.

We aimed to evaluate the role of PET targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for response assessment in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with taxane-based chemotherapy (docetaxel or cabazitaxel) and its predictive value on patient outcome. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 37 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa or metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at baseline and after the last cycle of taxane-based chemotherapy (docetaxel or cabazitaxel) without treatment modification between scans. Biochemical response (BR) was defined as an undetectable or at least 50% decreased level of prostate-specific antigen, compared with baseline. Associations between BR and different PET parameters were tested. A cutoff of at least a 30% decrease in PSMA total tumor volume (PSMA-TV) was used to define a PSMA response (PSMA-R) versus a PSMA nonresponse (PSMA-NR). Correlations between PSMA PET/CT response and BR were evaluated using the ϕ-coefficient. Associations between PET response and overall survival (OS) was tested using Cox regression and the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Our cohort comprised 8 (22%) metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa and 29 (78%) mCRPC patients. Twenty-one patients received docetaxel treatment, and 16 received cabazitaxel (median, 6 cycles; interquartile range, 5-8 cycles). BR was found in 18 of 37 patients. Using PSMA total tumor volume, PSMA PET/CT response was concordant with BR in 35 of 37 patients (ϕ = 0.89, P < 0.0001). Eighteen of 37 patients had PSMA-R (6, complete response; 12, partial response), and 19 had PSMA-NR (17, progressive disease; 2, stable disease). After a median follow-up of 23 mo, there was a statistically significant longer OS for PSMA-R than for PSMA-NR (median OS not reached vs. 12 mo, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; P = 0.001) for the entire population. Among the mCRPC subgroup, differences in OS were also observed (median, 22 vs. 12 mo, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.82; P = 0.023), with a 12-mo OS rate of 100% for PSMA-R and 52% for PSMA-NR (P = 0.011). Conclusion: This retrospective analysis suggests that 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT is a promising imaging modality for assessing response to taxane-based chemotherapy in metastatic PCa. Changes in PSMA expression might be used as a predictive biomarker for OS to help tailor individual therapy and select eligible patients for clinical trials.

Combined Metabolically Active Tumor Volume and Early Metabolic Response Improve Outcome Prediction in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Stratification of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is mostly based on clinical and biologic characteristics. This study aimed to validate the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT-based biomarkers such as baseline whole-body metabolically active tumor volume (WB-MATV) and early metabolic response (mR) in mCRC. Methods: The development cohort included chemorefractory mCRC patients enrolled in 2 prospective Belgian multicenter trials evaluating last-line treatments (multikinase inhibitors). The validation cohort included mCRC patients from an Italian center treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab as first-line. Baseline WB-MATV was defined as the sum of metabolically active volumes of all target lesions identified on the baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT. Early mR assessment was performed following usual response criteria (response threshold of 30% [PERCIST-30%], response threshold of 15% [PERCIST-15%], European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) and the so-called CONSIST method, which defines response as a decrease of SULmax ≥ 15% for all target lesions. Baseline WB-MATV and early mR assessment were investigated along with usual clinical factors and correlated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Clinical factors, baseline WB-MATV, and early mR were evaluable in 192 of 239 and 94 of 125 patients of the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Except for PERCIST-30%, all response methods were equivalent in terms of outcome prediction, and CONSIST was found to be the most accurate. Baseline WB-MATV and early mR using the CONSIST method were independent prognostic parameters after adjustment for clinical factors in the development and validation sets for both OS (hazard ratio [HR] WB-MATV: 1.87 [95% CI, 1.17-2.97], P = 0.005, and HR early mR: 1.79 [95% CI, 1.08-2.95], P = 0.02 for the validation set) and PFS (HR WB-MATV: 1.94 [95% CI, 1.27-2.97], P = 0.002, and HR early mR: 1.69 [95% CI, 1.04-2.73], P = 0.03 for the validation set). Conclusion: Baseline WB-MATV and early mR are strong independent prognostic biomarkers for OS and PFS in mCRC, regardless of treatment received. Therefore, combining these biomarkers improves risk stratification for OS and PFS in mCRC.

Prognostic Value of the Pace of Tumor Progression as Assessed by Serial 18F-FDG PET/CT Scan and Liquid Biopsy in Refractory Colorectal Cancer: The CORIOLAN Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Decision making in refractory colorectal cancer (rCRC) is challenging, with limited data available to predict patient outcome. We conducted a study to assess the pace of cancer progression as a potential prognostic and decision tool. METHODS: CORIOLAN was a prospective, single-center, single-arm trial recruiting refractory CRC patients with an ECOG performance status of ≤1 and an estimated life expectancy of ≥12 weeks. 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scan and blood sample collection were carried out at baseline and after 2 weeks with no cancer treatment given between these timepoints. The primary objective was to evaluate the association between pace of cancer progression as defined by changes of the whole-body metabolically active tumor volume (WB-MATV) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives included evaluation of the prognostic value of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). RESULTS: 47 eligible patients who had received a median number of 5 (range 2-8) prior treatments were enrolled. At the time of analysis, 45 deaths had occurred, with 26% of patients dying within 12 weeks. The median OS was 6.3 months (range 0.4-14.3). The median relative delta between WB-MATV at baseline and 2 weeks was +21%. Changes of WB-MATV, however, failed to predict OS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3, p = 0.383). Similarly, no association was observed between changes of any of the circulating biomarkers investigated and prognosis. By contrast, high WB-MATV (4.2 versus 9.4 months; HR 3.1, p = 0.003), high CEA (4.4 versus 7.0 months; HR 1.9, p = 0.053), high cfDNA (4.7 versus 7.0 months; HR 2.2, p = 0.015) and high CTC count (3.3 versus 7.5 months; HR 6.5, p < 0.001) at baseline were associated with worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, approximately 1 out of 4 refractory CRC patients who were judged to have a life expectancy >12 weeks actually died within 12 weeks. Baseline assessment of WB-MATV, cfDNA, CTCs and CEA, but not early change evaluation of the same, may help to refine patient prognostication and guide management decisions.

Prognostic value of a three-scale grading system based on combining molecular imaging with 68Ga-DOTATATE and 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasias.

We investigated on the added prognostic value of a three-scale combined molecular imaging with 68Ga-DOTATATE and 18F-FDG PET/CT, (compared to Ki-67 based histological grading), in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasia patients. 85 patients with histologically proven metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasias, who underwent combined PET/CT imaging were retrospectively evaluated. Highest Ki-67 value available at time of 18F-FDG PET/CT was recorded. Patients were classified according to World Health Organization/European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society histological grades (G1, G2, G3) and into three distinct imaging categories (C1: all lesions are 18F-FDG negative/68Ga-DOTATATE positive, C2: patients with one or more 18F-FDG positive lesions, all of them 68Ga-DOTATATE positive, C3: patients with one or more 18F-FDG positive lesions, at least one of them 68Ga-DOTATATE negative). The primary endpoint of the study was Progression-Free Survival, assessed from the date of 18F-FDG PET/CT to the date of radiological progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Classification according to histological grade did not show significant statistical difference in median Progression-Free Survival between G1 and G2 but was significant between G2 and G3 patients. In contrast, median Progression-Free Survival was significantly higher in C1 compared to C2 and in C2 compared to C3 patients, revealing three distinctive imaging categories, each with highly distinctive prognosis. Our three-scale combined 68Ga-DOTATATE/18F-FDG PET imaging classification holds high prognostic value in patients with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasias.

Living better or living longer? Perceptions of patients and health care professionals in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Cancer can influence the views of patients on treatment goals and make them different from those of health care professionals (HCPs). It is crucial to understand patient expectations regarding cancer treatment. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and HCPs to evaluate their perceptions about treatment priorities and to analyse variables that might influence their opinions. To identify treatment choices, we interviewed all participants using a structured questionnaire with fictitious case vignettes. RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 230 participants, including 144 patients and 86 HCPs (35 nurses, 21 physicians, 30 others). Treatment priority between survival time (28.5% for patients vs. 8.1% for HCP) and quality of life (45.8% vs. 87.2%) differed significantly, with the remaining participants stating they were uncertain or unwilling to respond, or providing invalid responses (P < 0.01). In logistic regression, prioritising survival time was more frequent in patients, adjusting for age and gender (odds ratio (OR) = 3.95; P < 0.01). The view that the physician alone should be responsible for treatment choices was more frequent among patients than HCPs (18.8 vs. 5.8%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, our results suggest that survival time is more important for patients with cancer than for HCPs, whereas quality of life is more important for HCPs than for patients with cancer, who place great emphasis on physicians as decision-makers. Given that Brazilian patients often rely on physicians for decisions, the potential impact of different priorities between survival time and quality of life when patients and HCPs are compared is unknown.

Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better?

OBJECTIVES: Despite the progress achieved in the fight against cancer over the past several years, assessing the needs, goals and preferences of patients with cancer is of the utmost importance for the delivery of health care. We sought to assess priorities regarding quantity versus quality of life among Brazilian patients, comparing them with individuals without cancer. METHODS: Using a questionnaire presenting four hypothetical cancer cases, we interviewed cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, most of whom had administrative functions in our hospital. RESULTS: A total of 214 individuals participated: 101 patients, 44 health-care professionals and 69 laypersons. The mean ages in the three groups were 56, 34 and 31 years old, respectively (p<0.001). The patients had gastrointestinal (25%), breast (22%), hematologic (10%), lung (8%) or other tumors (36%) and the tumor-node- metastasis (TNM) stage was I, II, III or IV in 22%, 13%, 34% and 31% of cases, respectively. Treatment priorities differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.005), with survival time being a higher priority for patients than for the other two groups and with opposite trends regarding quality of life. In multivariate analysis, the age and sex distributions were not associated with the choice to maximize quality of life. In this limited sample of cancer patients, there were no associations between treatment priorities and disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: Both survival time and quality of life appeared to be important to cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, but survival time seemed to have higher priority for people diagnosed with cancer than for healthy people. Additionally, survival seemed to be more important than quality of life for all three groups assessed.

Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better?

OBJECTIVES: Despite the progress achieved in the fight against cancer over the past several years, assessing the needs, goals and preferences of patients with cancer is of the utmost importance for the delivery of health care. We sought to assess priorities regarding quantity versus quality of life among Brazilian patients, comparing them with individuals without cancer. METHODS: Using a questionnaire presenting four hypothetical cancer cases, we interviewed cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, most of whom had administrative functions in our hospital. RESULTS: A total of 214 individuals participated: 101 patients, 44 health-care professionals and 69 laypersons. The mean ages in the three groups were 56, 34 and 31 years old, respectively (p<0.001). The patients had gastrointestinal (25%), breast (22%), hematologic (10%), lung (8%) or other tumors (36%) and the tumor-node- metastasis (TNM) stage was I, II, III or IV in 22%, 13%, 34% and 31% of cases, respectively. Treatment priorities differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.005), with survival time being a higher priority for patients than for the other two groups and with opposite trends regarding quality of life. In multivariate analysis, the age and sex distributions were not associated with the choice to maximize quality of life. In this limited sample of cancer patients, there were no associations between treatment priorities and disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: Both survival time and quality of life appeared to be important to cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, but survival time seemed to have higher priority for people diagnosed with cancer than for healthy people. Additionally, survival seemed to be more important than quality of life for all three groups assessed. .