Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 2020; 59(03): 228-234
DOI: 10.1055/a-1140-5458
Original Article

Textural features in FDG-PET/CT can predict outcome in melanoma patients to treatment with Vemurafenib and Ipililumab

Daniela Dittrich
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany
,
Thomas Pyka
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany
2   Zentrum für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum Dritter Orden, Munich, Germany
,
Klemens Scheidhauer
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany
,
Susanne Lütje
3   Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany
,
Markus Essler
3   Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany
,
Ralph A. Bundschuh
3   Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim Recently, textural parameters assessed in FDG-PET/CT as surrogate marker for tumor heterogeneity have been shown to provide prognostic power. Therefore, we investigated the use of such parameters in FDG-PET/CT examinations before the start of immunotherapy with vemurafenib or ipilimumab in patients with malignant melanoma.

Methods In this retrospective analysis 26 patients with histologically proven advanced melanoma were included. FGD-PET/CT was performed before the start of treatment either with vemurafenib (n = 9) or ipilimumab (n = 17) and tumors were analyzed for textural parameters as well as conventional PET features. Lesions were classified as responding or not responding following PERCIST criteria. ROC analysis was performed to analyze the predictive power and cut-off values. In addition, the change of maximum SUV of the lesions between pretherapeutic PET/CT and another PET/CT performed about 12 weeks after start of treatment was evaluated and correlated with the pretreatment parameters.

Results In both groups, six textural parameters showed statistically significant predictive power as well as the metabolic tumor volume. In the group treated with vemurafenib eight additional textural parameters as well as the maximum and mean SUV and the TLG showed significance. A statistically significant correlation between the change of maximum SUV in the course of treatment and the pretherapeutic parameters was found in both treatment groups for three textural features.

Conclusion In patients with malignant melanoma textural parameters in pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT examinations seem to have prognostic power for treatment response of immunotherapy with vemurafenib and ipilimumab. This can be an important step towards personalized tumor therapy.

Key words

PET/CT - textural parameters - melanoma - radiomics - therapy response prediction


Publication History

Received: 18 February 2020

Accepted: 16 March 2020

Article published online:
07 April 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Marks R. Epidemiology of melanoma. Clin Exp Dermatol 2000; 25: 459-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Krensel M, Schafer I, Augustin M. Cost-of-illness of melanoma in Europe – a systematic review of the published literature. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019; 33: 504-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rogiers A, Boekhout A, Schwarze JK. et al. Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. J Oncol 2019; 2019: 5269062
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Banaszynski M, Kolesar JM. Vemurafenib and ipilimumab: new agents for metastatic melanoma. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013; 70: 1205-1210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ma C, Armstrong AW. Severe adverse events from the treatment of advanced melanoma: a systematic review of severe side effects associated with ipilimumab, vemurafenib, interferon alfa-2b, dacarbazine and interleukin-2. J Dermatolog Treat 2014; 25: 401-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C. et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2507-2516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF. et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 711-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Albano D, Familiari D, Fornito MC. et al. Clinical and prognostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the restaging process of recurrent cutaneous melanoma. Curr Radiopharm 2019; 13: 42-47
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A. Monitoring of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors using PET-CT. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2019; 68: 813-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Krug B, Crott R, Lonneux M. et al. Role of PET in the initial staging of cutaneous malignant melanoma: systematic review. Radiology 2008; 249: 836-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chen SW, Shen WC, Lin YC. et al. Correlation of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features with gene expression in pharyngeal cancer and implications for radiotherapy-based treatment outcomes. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2017; 44: 567-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bundschuh RA, Dinges J, Neumann L. et al. Textural Parameters of Tumor Heterogeneity in (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT for Therapy Response Assessment and Prognosis in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 891-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Werner RA, Ilhan H, Lehner S. et al. Pre-therapy Somatostatin Receptor-Based Heterogeneity Predicts Overall Survival in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Patients Undergoing Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy. Mol Imaging Biol 2018; 21: 582-590
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Martinez MJ, Bercier Y, Schwaiger M. et al. PET/CT Biograph Sensation 16: Performance Improvement Using Faster Electronics. Nuklearmedizin 2006; 3: 126-133
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Joo Hyun O, Lodge MA, Wahl RL. Practical PERCIST: A Simplified Guide to PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0. Radiology 2016; 280: 576-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 369-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pyka T, Bundschuh RA, Andratschke N. et al. Textural features in pre-treatment [F18]-FDG-PET/CT are correlated with risk of local recurrence and disease-specific survival in early stage NSCLC patients receiving primary stereotactic radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10: 100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallieres M. et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2015; 56: 38-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Khurshid Z, Ahmadzadehfar H, Gaertner FC. et al. Role of textural heterogeneity parameters in patient selection for 177Lu-PSMA therapy via response prediction. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 33312-33321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lapa C, Werner RA, Schmid JS. et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography-assessed tumor heterogeneity in patients with thyroid cancer undergoing treatment with radiopeptide therapy. Nucl Med Biol 2015; 42: 349-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M. et al. Are Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET Tumor Textural Features in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Associated with Response and Survival After Chemoradiotherapy?. J Nucl Med 2013; 54: 19-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1989; 19: 1264-1274
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC. et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 2013; 266: 326-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Goudar RK, Vlahovic G. Hypoxia, angiogenesis, and lung cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2008; 10: 277-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jiang G, Li RH, Sun C. et al. Dacarbazine combined targeted therapy versus dacarbazine alone in patients with malignant melanoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e111920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Li RH, Hou XY, Yang CS. et al. Temozolomide for Treating Malignant Melanoma. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015; 25: 680-688
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rohaan MW, Borch TH, van den Berg JH. et al. Randomized phase III study comparing a non-myeloablative lymphocyte depleting regimen of chemotherapy followed by infusion of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and interleukine-2 to standard ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma. Ann Oncol 2018; 29 (Suppl. 08) viii465
    Google Scholar