RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Lesion analysis through PERCIST 1.0 : Preliminary Results
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 1041
OP 1041
VO 62
IS supplement 1
A1 Bohil, Amit
YR 2021
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/62/supplement_1/1041.abstract
AB 1041Introduction: The SUVmax has been the most frequently used semi quantitative PET parameter for response evaluation but only metabolic activity of single lesion in whole body is analysed. Response parameters incorporating metabolic volume as Tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) incorporate the lesion metabolic volume or metabolic tumor burden whole body (MTBWB) are being explored for response evaluation. Comparison of response with different PET semi quantitative parameters as SUVmax and TLG in single lesion, multiple lesions (max. of 5 lesions) and MTBWB in advanced NSCLC patients was made and different PET parameters analyzed in relation to OS and PFS. Methods: Prospective 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging was performed in 23 patients (M=14, F=9, mean age=57.6 year) with Stage IIIB-IV advanced NSCLC before initiation of therapy with oral EGFR TKI for early and late response evaluation. The quantitative PET parameters as SUVmax, SULmax, and TLG were measured in the single hottest lesion, multiple lesions and MTBWB. The parameters SUVmax, TLG and MTBWB was compared for early (21days) and late (42 days) response evaluation and analyzed with the OS and PFS. Results: No significant change in response evaluation was seen in patients evaluated with single hottest lesion, multiple lesions (max. of 5 lesions) or the metabolic tumor burden whole body. The response parameter was considered in terms of disease control (DC) involving complete response, partial response and stable disease and No disease control (NDC) involving progressive disease. Difference in response evaluation was seen between early (DC 22, NDC 1) and late (DC 20, NDC 3) response evaluation that remained unchanged when lesion was measurement was measured in terms of single lesion, multiple lesions ( max of 5) or the MTBWB. The OS in the early imaging was statistically significant (p= 0.049) compared to the late imaging (p=0.115). Conclusions: Single hottest lesion with measurement of SUVmax showed similar disease response classification as that in the multiple lesions (max of 5) and MTBWB in disease control (DC) and OS. The response evaluation by late imaging offered no significant advantage compared to early imaging. Thus early response evaluation with SUVmax measurement in single hottest lesion can be comfortably considered in clinical work setting for ease of measurement.