FAPI PET uptake patterns after invasive medical interventions: a single center retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP)-inhibitor (FAPI)-PET tracers allow imaging of the FAP-expressing cancer associated fibroblasts (CAF) and also the normal activated fibroblasts (NAF) involved in inflammation/fibrosis that may be present after invasive medical interventions. We evaluated [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 uptake patterns post-medical/invasive non-systemic interventions. METHODS: This single-center retrospective analysis was conducted in 79 consecutive patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT. Investigators reviewed prior patient medical/invasive interventions (surgery, endoscopy, biopsy, radiotherapy, foreign body placement (FBP) defined as implanted medical/surgical material present at time of scan) and characterized the anatomically corresponding FAPI uptake intensity both visually (positive if above surrounding background) and quantitatively (SUVmax). Interventions with missing data/images or confounders of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 uptake (partial volume effect, other cause of increased uptake) were excluded. Available correlative FDG, DOTATATE and PSMA PET/CTs were analyzed when available. RESULTS: 163 medical/invasive interventions (mostly surgeries (49%), endoscopies (18%) and non-surgical biopsies (10%)) in 60 subjects were included for analysis. 43/163 (26%) involved FBP. FAPI uptake occurred in 24/163 (15%) of interventions (average SUVmax 3.2 (mild), range 1.5-5.1). The median time-interval post-intervention to FAPI-PET was 47.5 months and was shorter when FAPI uptake was present (median 9.5 months) than when absent (median 60.1 months; p = 0.001). Cut-off time beyond which no FAPI uptake would be present post-intervention without FBP was 8.2 months, with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 82, 90, 99 and 31% respectively. No optimal cutoff point could be determined when considering interventions with FBP. No significant difference was detected between frequency of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 and [18F]FDG uptake in intervention sites. Compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11, [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 revealed more frequent and intense post-interventional tracer uptake. CONCLUSION: [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 uptake from medical/invasive interventions without FBP appears to be time dependent, nearly always absent beyond 8 months post-intervention, but frequently present for years with FBP.

A Phase I Trial Evaluating the Addition of Lenalidomide to Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Progressing on Ruxolitinib and Methylprednisolone.

BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an orally administered selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, has received approval for the treatment of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and graft-versus-host disease. We have previously demonstrated the anti-multiple myeloma effects of RUX alone and in combination with the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide (LEN) and glucocorticosteroids both pre-clinically and clinically. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether LEN can achieve clinical activity among patients with multiple myeloma progressing on the combination of RUX and methylprednisolone (MP). METHODS: In this part of a phase I, multicenter, open-label study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of RUX and MP for patients with multiple myeloma with progressive disease who had previously received a proteasome inhibitor, LEN, glucocorticosteroids, and at least three prior regimens; we also determined the safety and efficacy of adding LEN at the time of disease progression from the initial doublet treatment. Initially, all subjects received oral RUX 15 mg twice daily and oral MP 40 mg every other day. Those patients who developed progressive disease according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria then received LEN 10 mg once daily on days 1-21 within a 28-day cycle in addition to RUX and MP, which were administered at the same doses these patients were receiving at the time progressive disease developed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects (median age 64 years; 18 [62%] male) were enrolled in this part of the study and initially received the two-drug combination of RUX and MP. The median number of prior therapies was six (range 3-12). The overall response rate from this two-drug combination was 31% and the clinical benefit rate was 34%. The best responses were 1 very good partial response, 8 partial responses, 1 minor response, 12 stable disease, and 7 progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (range  0.5-36.2 months). The median time to response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response was 12.5 months (range 2.8-36.2 months). Twenty (69%) patients who showed progressive disease had LEN added to RUX and MP; all patients had prior exposure to LEN and all but one patient was refractory to their last LEN-containing regimen. After the addition of LEN, the overall response rate was 30% and the clinical benefit rate was 40%. The best responses of patients following the addition of LEN were 2 very good partial responses, 4 partial responses, 2 minor responses, 8 stable disease, and 4 progressive disease. The median time to response was 2.6 months (range 0.7-15.0 months). The median duration of response was not reached. The median progression-free survival following the addition of LEN was 3.5 months (range 0.3-25.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with multiple myeloma, treatment with RUX and MP is effective and well tolerated, and LEN can be used to extend the benefit of this RUX-based treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110822, and is ongoing.

Adherence to ophthalmology referral, treatment and follow-up after diabetic retinopathy screening in the primary care setting.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine-based diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in primary care settings has increased the screening rates of patients with diabetes. However, blindness from vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) is a persistent problem. This study examined the extent of patients' adherence to postscreening recommendations. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS: A retrospective record review was conducted in primary care clinics of a large county hospital in the USA. All patients with diabetes detected with VTDR in two time periods, differing in record type used, were included in the study: 2012-2014, paper charts only; 2015-2017, combined paper charts/electronic medical records (EMRs), or EMRs only. Adherence rates for keeping initial ophthalmology appointments, starting recommended treatments, and keeping follow-up appointments were determined. RESULTS: Adequate records were available for 6046 patients; 408 (7%) were detected with VTDR and recommended for referral to ophthalmology. Only 5% completed a first ophthalmology appointment within recommended referral interval, 15% within twice the recommended interval, and 51% within 1 year of DRS. Patients screened in 2015-2017 were more likely to complete a first ophthalmology appointment than those in 2012-2014. Ophthalmic treatment was recommended in half of the patients, of whom 94% initiated treatment. A smaller percentage (41%) adhered completely to post-treatment follow-up. Overall, 28% of referred patients: (1) kept a first ophthalmology appointment; (2) were recommended for treatment; and (3) initiated the treatment. Most patients failing to keep first ophthalmology appointments continued non-ophthalmic medical care at the institution. EMRs provided more complete information than paper charts. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing vision impairment from VTDR requires greater emphasis on timely adherence to ophthalmology referral and follow-up. Prevention of visual loss from VTDR starts with retinopathy screening, but must include patient engagement, adherence monitoring, and streamlining ophthalmic referral and management. Revision of these processes has already been implemented at the study site, incorporating lessons from this investigation.