TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of imaging modalities and response metrics in Ewing sarcoma
T2 - Correlation with survival
AU - Koshkin, Vadim S.
AU - Bolejack, Vanessa
AU - Schwartz, Lawrence H.
AU - Wahl, Richard L.
AU - Chugh, Rashmi
AU - Reinke, Denise K.
AU - Zhao, Binsheng
AU - Joo, H. O.
AU - Patel, Shreyaskumar R.
AU - Schuetze, Scott M.
AU - Baker, Laurence H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2016/10/20
Y1 - 2016/10/20
N2 - Purpose: Despite the rapidly increasing use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET), the comparison of anatomic and functional imaging in the assessment of clinical outcomes has been lacking. In addition, there has not been a rigorous evaluation of how common radiologic criteria or the location of the radiology reader (local v central) compare in the ability to predict benefit. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of various radiologic response assessments for the prediction of overall survival (OS) within the same data set of patients with sarcoma. Methods: We analyzed assessments made during a clinical trial of a novel IGF1R antibody in Ewing sarcoma: PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) for functional imaging and WHO criteria (performed locally and centrally), RECIST, and volumetric analysis for anatomic imaging. We compared the effectiveness of the various criteria for the prediction of progression and survival. Results: For volume analysis, progression-defined as cumulative lesion volume increase of 100% at 6 weeks-was the optimal cutoff for decreased OS (P <.001). Assessment of the day-9 FDG-PET scan was associated with reduced OS in progressors compared with nonprogressors (P =.001) and with improved OS in responders compared with nonresponders. Significant variations in response (18% to 44%) and progression (9% to 50%) were observed between the different criteria. The comparison of central and local interpretation of anatomic imaging produced similar outcomes. PET was superior to anatomic imaging in identification of a response. Volume analysis identified the most responders among the anatomic imaging criteria. Conclusion: An early signal with FDG-PET on day 9 and volume analysis were the best predictors of benefit. Validation of the volumetric analysis is required.
AB - Purpose: Despite the rapidly increasing use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET), the comparison of anatomic and functional imaging in the assessment of clinical outcomes has been lacking. In addition, there has not been a rigorous evaluation of how common radiologic criteria or the location of the radiology reader (local v central) compare in the ability to predict benefit. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of various radiologic response assessments for the prediction of overall survival (OS) within the same data set of patients with sarcoma. Methods: We analyzed assessments made during a clinical trial of a novel IGF1R antibody in Ewing sarcoma: PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) for functional imaging and WHO criteria (performed locally and centrally), RECIST, and volumetric analysis for anatomic imaging. We compared the effectiveness of the various criteria for the prediction of progression and survival. Results: For volume analysis, progression-defined as cumulative lesion volume increase of 100% at 6 weeks-was the optimal cutoff for decreased OS (P <.001). Assessment of the day-9 FDG-PET scan was associated with reduced OS in progressors compared with nonprogressors (P =.001) and with improved OS in responders compared with nonresponders. Significant variations in response (18% to 44%) and progression (9% to 50%) were observed between the different criteria. The comparison of central and local interpretation of anatomic imaging produced similar outcomes. PET was superior to anatomic imaging in identification of a response. Volume analysis identified the most responders among the anatomic imaging criteria. Conclusion: An early signal with FDG-PET on day 9 and volume analysis were the best predictors of benefit. Validation of the volumetric analysis is required.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992391889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992391889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.1858
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.1858
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84992391889
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 34
SP - 3680
EP - 3685
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 30
ER -