Aberrant patterns of PET response during treatment for DLBCL patients with MYC gene rearrangements.

PURPOSE: MYC gene rearrangements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients are associated with poor prognosis. Our aim was to compare patterns of 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET/CT) response in MYC + and MYC- DLBCL patients. METHODS: Interim PET/CT (I-PET) and end of treatment PET/CT (EoT-PET) scans of 81 MYC + and 129 MYC- DLBCL patients from 2 HOVON trials were reviewed using the Deauville 5-point scale (DS). DS1-3 was regarded as negative and DS4-5 as positive. Standardized uptake values (SUV) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were quantified at baseline, I-PET, and EoT-PET. Negative (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated using 2-year overall survival. RESULTS: MYC + DLBCL patients had significantly more positive EoT-PET scans than MYC- patients (32.5 vs 15.7%, p = 0.004). I-PET positivity rates were comparable (28.8 vs 23.8%). In MYC + patients 23.2% of the I-PET negative patients converted to positive at EoT-PET, vs only 2% for the MYC- patients (p = 0.002). Nine (34.6%) MYC + DLBCL showed initially uninvolved localizations at EoT-PET, compared to one (5.3%) MYC- patient. A total of 80.8% of EoT-PET positive MYC + patients showed both increased lesional SUV and MTV compared to I-PET. In MYC- patients, 31.6% showed increased SUV and 42.1% showed increased MTV. NPV of I-PET and EoT-PET was high for both MYC subgroups (81.8-94.1%). PPV was highest at EoT-PET for MYC + patients (61.5%). CONCLUSION: MYC + DLBCL patients demonstrate aberrant PET response patterns compared to MYC- patients with more frequent progression during treatment after I-PET negative assessment and new lesions at sites that were not initially involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: HOVON-84: EudraCT: 2006-005,174-42, retrospectively registered 01-08-2008. HOVON-130: EudraCT: 2014-002,654-39, registered 26-01-2015.

Cost-Effectiveness of Shortening Treatment Duration Based on Interim PET Outcome in Patients With Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment are shifting from long to short treatment duration, although it is still unclear whether shortening treatment duration does not cause any harm. As interim PET (I-PET) has high negative predictive value for progression, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of shortening treatment duration dependent on I-PET result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model using the PET Re-Analysis (PETRA) database to evaluate a long treatment duration (LTD) strategy, ie 8x R-CHOP or 6x R-CHOP plus 2 R, and a short treatment duration (STD) strategy, ie 6x R-CHOP. Strategies were evaluated separately in I-PET2 positive and I-PET2 negative patients. Outcomes included total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (pp) from a societal perspective. Net monetary benefit (NMB) per strategy was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY. Robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In I-PET2 positive patients, shortening treatment duration led to 50.4 additional deaths per 1000 patients. The STD strategy was less effective (-0.161 [95%CI: -0.343;0.028] QALYs pp) and less costly (-€2768 [95%CI: -€8420;€1105] pp). Shortening treatment duration was not cost-effective (incremental NMB -€5281). In I-PET2 negative patients, shortening treatment duration led to 5.0 additional deaths per 1000 patients and a minor difference in effectiveness (-0.007 [95%CI: -0.136;0.140] QALY pp). The STD strategy was less costly (-€5807 [95%CI: -€10,724;-€2685] pp) and led to an incremental NMB of €5449, indicating that it is cost-effective to shorten treatment duration. Robustness of these findings was underpinned by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Treatment duration should not be shortened in I-PET2 positive patients whereas it is cost-effective to shorten treatment duration in I-PET2 negative patients.

Optimal timing and criteria of interim PET in DLBCL: a comparative study of 1692 patients.

Interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (Interim-18F-FDG-PET, hereafter I-PET) has the potential to guide treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) if the prognostic value is known. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal timing and response criteria for evaluating prognosis with I-PET in DLBCL. Individual patient data from 1692 patients with de novo DLBCL were combined and scans were harmonized. I-PET was performed at various time points during treatment with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy. Scans were interpreted using the Deauville score (DS) and change in maximum standardized uptake value (ΔSUVmax). Multilevel Cox proportional hazards models corrected for International Prognostic Index (IPI) score were used to study the effects of timing and response criteria on 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). I-PET after 2 cycles (I-PET2) and I-PET4 significantly discriminated good responders from poor responders, with the highest hazard ratios (HRs) for I-PET4. Multivariable HRs for a PET-positive result at I-PET2 and I-PET4 were 1.71 and 2.95 using DS4-5, 4.91 and 6.20 using DS5, and 2.93 and 4.65 using ΔSUVmax, respectively. ΔSUVmax identified a larger proportion of poor responders than DS5 did. For all criteria, the negative predictive value was >80%, and positive predictive values ranged from 30% to 70% at I-PET2 and I-PET4. Unlike I-PET1, I-PET3 discriminated good responders from poor responders using DS4-5 and DS5 thresholds (HRs, 2.94 and 4.67, respectively). I-PET2 and I-PET4 predict good response equally during R-CHOP therapy in DLBCL. Optimal timing and response criteria depend on the clinical context. Good response at I-PET2 is suggested for de-escalation trials, and poor response using ΔSUVmax at I-PET4 is suggested for randomized trials that are evaluating new therapies.