Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG-PET Parameters in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Current Literature.

Many studies have suggested a prognostic value of one or several positron emission tomography (PET) parameters in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, studies are often small, and there is a considerable interstudy disagreement about which PET parameters have a prognostic value. The objective of this study was to perform a review and meta-analysis to identify the most promising PET parameter for prognostication. PubMed®, Cochrane, and Embase® were searched for papers addressing the prognostic value of any PET parameter at any treatment phase with any endpoint in patients with SCLC. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated by a random effects model for the prognostic value of the baseline maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). The qualitative analysis included 38 studies, of these, 19 studies were included in the meta-analyses. The pooled results showed that high baseline MTV was prognostic for overall survival (OS) (HR: 2.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.00-4.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 3.11 (95% CI: 1.99-4.90)). The prognostic value of SUVmax was less pronounced (OS: HR: 1.50 (95% CI: 1.17-1.91); PFS: HR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.94-1.63)). Baseline MTV is a strong prognosticator for OS and PFS in patients with SCLC. MTV has a prognostic value superior to those of other PET parameters, but whether MTV is superior to other prognosticators of tumor burden needs further investigation.

18F-FLT PET/CT Adds Value to 18F-FDG PET/CT for Diagnosing Relapse After Definitive Radiotherapy in Patients with Lung Cancer: Results of a Prospective Clinical Trial.

Diagnosing relapse after radiotherapy for lung cancer is challenging. The specificity of both CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT is low because of radiation-induced changes. 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) PET has previously demonstrated higher specificity for malignancy than 18F-FDG PET. We investigated the value of 18F-FLT PET/CT for diagnosing relapse in irradiated lung cancer. Methods: Patients suspected of relapse of lung cancer after definitive radiotherapy (conventional fractionated radiotherapy [cRT] or stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) were included. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed both within the irradiated high-dose volume (HDV) and on a patient basis. Marginal differences and interobserver agreement were assessed. Results: Sixty-three patients who had received radiotherapy in 70 HDVs (34 cRT; 36 SBRT) were included. The specificity of 18F-FLT PET/CT was higher than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT (HDV, 96% [95% CI, 87-100] vs. 71% [95% CI, 57-83] [P = 0.0039]; patient-based, 90% [95% CI, 73-98] vs. 55% [95% CI, 36-74] [P = 0.0020]). The difference in specificity between 18F-FLT PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT was higher after cRT than after SBRT. The sensitivity of 18F-FLT PET/CT was lower than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT (HDV, 69% [95% CI, 41-89] vs. 94% [95% CI, 70-100] [P = 0.1250]; patient-based, 70% [95% CI, 51-84] vs. 94% [95% CI, 80-99] [P = 0.0078]). Adding 18F-FLT PET/CT when 18F-FDG PET/CT was positive or inconclusive improved the diagnostic value compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT alone. In cRT HDVs, the probability of malignancy increased from 67% for 18F-FDG PET/CT alone to 100% when both tracers were positive. Conclusion:18F-FLT PET/CT adds diagnostic value to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected relapse. The diagnostic impact of 18F-FLT PET/CT was highest after cRT. We suggest adding 18F-FLT PET/CT when 18F-FDG PET/CT is inconclusive or positive within the previously irradiated volume to improve diagnostic value in patients for whom histologic confirmation is not easily obtained.

18F-fluorothymidine (FLT)-PET and diffusion-weighted MRI for early response evaluation in patients with small cell lung cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive cancer often presenting in an advanced stage and prognosis is poor. Early response evaluation may have impact on the treatment strategy. AIM: We evaluated 18F-fluorothymidine-(FLT)-PET/diffusion-weighted-(DW)-MRI early after treatment start to describe biological changes during therapy, the potential of early response evaluation, and the added value of FLT-PET/DW-MRI. METHODS: Patients with SCLC referred for standard chemotherapy were eligible. FLT-PET/DW-MRI of the chest and brain was acquired within 14 days after treatment start. FLT-PET/DW-MRI was compared with pretreatment FDG-PET/CT. Standardized uptake value (SUV), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and functional tumor volumes were measured. FDG-SUVpeak, FLT-SUVpeak, and ADCmedian; spatial distribution of aggressive areas; and voxel-by-voxel analyses were evaluated to compare the biological information derived from the three functional imaging modalities. FDG-SUVpeak, FLT-SUVpeak, and ADCmedian were also analyzed for ability to predict final treatment response. RESULTS: Twelve patients with SCLC completed FLT-PET/MRI 1-9 days after treatment start. In nine patients, pretreatment FDG-PET/CT was available for comparison. A total of 16 T-sites and 12 N-sites were identified. No brain metastases were detected. FDG-SUVpeak was 2.0-22.7 in T-sites and 5.5-17.3 in N-sites. FLT-SUVpeak was 0.6-11.5 in T-sites and 1.2-2.4 in N-sites. ADCmedian was 0.76-1.74 × 10- 3 mm2/s in T-sites and 0.88-2.09 × 10-3 mm2/s in N-sites. FLT-SUVpeak correlated with FDG-SUVpeak, and voxel-by-voxel correlation was positive, though the hottest regions were dissimilarly distributed in FLT-PET compared to FDG-PET. FLT-SUVpeak was not correlated with ADCmedian, and voxel-by-voxel analyses and spatial distribution of aggressive areas varied with no systematic relation. LT-SUVpeak was significantly lower in responding lesions than non-responding lesions (mean FLT-SUVpeak in T-sites: 1.5 vs. 5.7; p = 0.007, mean FLT-SUVpeak in N-sites: 1.6 vs. 2.2; p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: FLT-PET and DW-MRI performed early after treatment start may add biological information in patients with SCLC. Proliferation early after treatment start measured by FLT-PET is a promising predictor for final treatment response that warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02995902. Registered 11 December 2014 - Retrospectively registered.

PET/CT in therapy evaluation of patients with lung cancer.

FDG-PET/CT is a well documented and widespread used imaging modality for the diagnosis and staging of patient with lung cancer. FDG-PET/CT is increasingly used for the assessment of treatment effects during and after chemotherapy. However, PET is not an accepted surrogate end-point for assessment of response rate in clinical trials. The aim of this review is to present current evidence on the use of PET in response evaluation of patients with lung cancer and to introduce the pearls and pitfalls of the PET-technology relating to response assessment. Based on this and relating to validation criteria, including stable technology, standardization, reproducibility and broad availability, the review discusses why, despite numerous studies on response assessment indicating a possible role for FDG-PET/CT, PET still has no place in guidelines relating to response evaluation in lung cancer.