STatistically Assigned Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (STARCIST)
Tóm tắt
Several reproducibility studies have established good test-retest reliability of FDG-PET in various oncology settings. However, these studies are based on relatively short inter-scan periods of 1–3 days while, in contrast, response assessments based on FDG-PET in early phase drug trials are typically made over an interval of 2–3 weeks during the first treatment cycle. With focus on longer, on-treatment scan intervals, we develop a data-driven approach to calculate baseline-specific cutoff values to determine patient-level changes in glucose uptake that are unlikely to be explained by random variability. Our method takes into account the statistical nature of natural fluctuations in SUV as well as potential bias effects. To assess variability in SUV over clinically relevant scan intervals for clinical trials, we analyzed baseline and follow-up FDG-PET scans with a median scan interval of 21 days from 53 advanced stage cancer patients enrolled in a Phase 1 trial. The 53 patients received a sub-pharmacologic drug dose and the trial data is treated as a ’test-retest’ data set. A simulation-based tool is presented which takes as input baseline lesion SUVmax values, the variance of spurious changes in SUVmax between scans, the desired Type I error rate, and outputs lesion and patient based cut-off values. Bias corrections are included to account for variations in tracer uptake time. In the training data, changes in SUVmax follow an approximately zero-mean Gaussian distribution with constant variance across levels of the baseline measurements. Because of constant variance, the coefficient of variation is a decreasing function of the magnitude of baseline SUVmax. This finding is consistent with published results, but our data shows greater variability. Application of our method to NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib produces results distinct from those based on the EORTC criteria. Based on data presented here as well as previous repeatability studies, the proposed method has greater statistical power to detect a significant %-decrease on SUVmax compared to published criteria relying on symmetric thresholds. Defining patient-specific, baseline dependent cut-off values based on the (null) distribution of naturally occurring fluctuations in glucose uptake enable identification of statistically significant changes in SUVmax. For lower baseline values, the produced cutoff values are notably asymmetric with relatively large changes (e.g. >50 %) required for statistical significance. For use with prospectively defined endpoints, the developed method enables the use of one-armed trials to detect pharmacodynamic drug effects based on FDG-PET. The clinical importance of changes in SUVmax is likely to remain dependent on both tumor biology and the type of treatment.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anderson H, Singh N, Miles K. Tumour response evaluation with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: research technique or clinical tool? Cancer imaging. 2010;10:S68-S72.
Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the first International workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leukemia Lymphoma. 2009;50(8):1257–60. Epub 2009/06/23.
Castell F, Cook GJ. Quantitative techniques in 18FDG PET scanning in oncology. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(10):1597–601. Epub 2008/05/14.
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(1):181–200. Epub 2009/11/17.
Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18 F]-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(13):1773–82. Epub 2000/02/16.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nuclear Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50.
de Langen AJ, Vincent A, Velasquez LM, van Tinteren H, Boellaard R, Shankar LK, et al. Repeatability of 18 F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a metaanalysis. J Nuclear Med. 2012;53(5):701–8.
Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, Vansteenkiste J, Nuyts J, Smit EF, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18 F-FDG PET. J Nuclear Med. 2002;43(10):1304–9. Epub 2002/10/10.
Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196(1):167–73. Epub 1995/07/01.
Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18 F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nuclear Med. 2008;49(11):1804–8. Epub 2008/10/18.
Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Repeatability of 18 F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nuclear Med. 2009;50(10):1646–54. Epub 2009/09/18.
Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nuclear Med. 1999;40(11):1771–7. Epub 1999/11/24.
Beaulieu S, Kinahan P, Tseng J, Dunnwald LK, Schubert EK, Pham P, et al. SUV varies with time after injection in (18)F-FDG PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. J Nuclear Med. 2003;44(7):1044–50. Epub 2003/07/05.
Spigel DR, Ervin TJ, Ramlau RA, Daniel DB, Goldschmidt Jr JH, Blumenschein Jr GR, et al. Randomized phase II trial of Onartuzumab in combination with erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4105–14. Epub 2013/10/09.
Patel P, Bothos J, Fredrickson J, Bengtsson T, Peterson A. de Crespigny A. Results from FDG-PET imaging in OAM4558g, a randomized, placebocontrolled, multi-center Phase II trial of erlotinib ± MetMAb in second- and thirdline NSCLC. Amsterdam, Holland: 14th World Conference on Lung Cancer; 2011. MO06.9.
Williams SP, Flores-Mercado JE, Baudy AR, Port RE, Bengtsson T. The power of FDG PET to detect treatment effects is increased by glucose correction using a Michaelis constant. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2(1):35. Epub 2012/06/29.
Williams SP, Flores-Mercado JE, Port RE, Bengtsson T. Quantitation of glucose uptake in tumors by dynamic FDG-PET has less glucose bias and lower variability when adjusted for partial saturation of glucose transport. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:6. Epub 2012/02/03.
Ni W, Vriens D, de Geus-Oei L-F, Oyen WJ, Bengtsson T, de Crespigny A. Significant impact of FDG plasma kinetics and update time on tumor SUV in oncology clinical trials. St. Louis: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Annual Meeting; 2014. MO2014. p. 2072.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nuclear Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20.
Bickel P, Doksum K. Mathematical Statistics: Basic Ideas and Selected Topics. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day; 1977.
R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2009
Gelman A, Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Baysian Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall; 1995.