nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

24.05.2017 | Editorial

Therapy monitoring with PET in cancer patients: achievements, opportunities and challenges ahead for the PET community

verfasst von: Nicolas Aide, Stefano Fanti

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Sonderheft 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

It has been 18 years since the first guidelines on PET response criteria were released [1] (with little supporting data at that time) and 15 years since the first successful use of PET for evaluation of a molecularly targeted therapy (imatinib) was published [2]. This latter study demonstrated the huge potential of PET imaging in assessing tumor response early after treatment initiation, at a time when conventional criteria based on size measurements (RECIST) were found to be unsatisfactorily. Since then, numerous studies using FDG PET as a surrogate marker to evaluate response to therapy have been published; PET Response Criteria In Solid Tumors (PERCIST) have been introduced [3, 4] and data regarding repeatability of PET have been published, supporting the use of thresholds to discriminate between responders and non-responders [5, 6]. Nonetheless, unfortunately, FDG PET is far from being a standard tool in clinical trials assessing new antineoplastic tools, but there have been indeed relevant progress. …

Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) PET study group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.CrossRefPubMed

Van den Abbeele AD, Badawi RD. Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(Suppl 5):S60–5.CrossRefPubMed

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

O JH, Lodge MA, Wahl RL. Practical PERCIST: a simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology. 2016;280:576–84. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016142043.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de Langen AJ, Vincent A, Velasquez LM, van Tinteren H, Boellaard R, Shankar LK, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:701–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.095299.CrossRefPubMed

Lodge MA. Repeatability of SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:523–32. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.186353.CrossRefPubMed

van der Vos CS, Koopman D S. R, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, et al. Quantification, improvement and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z.

Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3715-3.

Deroose C, Stroobants S, Liu Y, Shankar LK, Bourguet P. Using PET for therapy monitoring in oncological clinical trials: challenges ahead. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3689-1.

10.

Lheureux S, Denoyelle C, Ohashi PS, De Bono JS, Mottaghy FM. Molecularly targeted therapies in cancer: a guide for the nuclear medicine physician. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3695-3.

11.

Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbe C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7412–20. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1624.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cheson BD, Ansell S, Schwartz L, Gordon LI, Advani R, Jacene HA, et al. Refinement of the Lugano classification lymphoma response criteria in the era of immunomodulatory therapy. Blood. 2016;128:2489–96. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-05-718528.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Pinker K, Riedl C, Weber WA. Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3.

14.

Wong AN, McArthur GA, Hofman MS, Hicks RJ. The advantages and challenges of using FDG PET/CT for response assessment in melanoma in the era of targeted agents and immunotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3691-7.

15.

Giovacchini G, Giovannini E, Leoncini R, Riondato M, Ciarmiello A. PET and PET/CT with radiolabeled choline in prostate cancer: a critical reappraisal of 20 years of clinical studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3700-x.

16.

Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, Tang R, Ho B, Nguyen Q, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1185–90. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.160382.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ceci F, Herrmann K, Hadaschik B, Castelluci P, Fanti S. Therapy assessment in prostate cancer using choline and PSMA PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3723-3.

18.

Etchebehere EC, Milton DR, Araujo JC, Swanston NM, Macapinlac HA, Rohren EM. Factors affecting (223)Ra therapy: clinical experience after 532 cycles from a single institution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:8–20. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3185-4.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Florimonte L, Dellavedova L, Maffioli LS. Radium-223 dichloride in clinical practice: a review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1896–909. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3386-5.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Etchebehere EC, Brito AE, Rezaee A, Langsteger W, Beheshti M. Therapy assessment of bone metastatic disease in the era of 223Radium. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3734-0.

21.

Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3690-8.

22.

Nanni C, Zamagni E. Therapy assessment with PET in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3730-4.

Titel: Therapy monitoring with PET in cancer patients: achievements, opportunities and challenges ahead for the PET community
verfasst von: Nicolas Aide
Stefano Fanti
Publikationsdatum: 24.05.2017
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3721-5

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Therapy monitoring with PET in cancer patients: achievements, opportunities and challenges ahead for the PET community

Excerpt

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2017

The Advantages and Challenges of Using FDG PET/CT for Response Assessment in Melanoma in the Era of Targeted Agents and Immunotherapy

Therapy assessment in multiple myeloma with PET

FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas

Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments

Using PET for therapy monitoring in oncological clinical trials: challenges ahead

Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET