Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predictive value of early 18F-FDG PET/CT studies for treatment response evaluation to ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma: preliminary results of an ongoing study

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Ipilimumab is a newly approved immunotherapeutic agent that has been shown to provide a survival benefit in patients with metastatic melanoma. 18F-FDG PET/CT has demonstrated very satisfying results in detecting melanoma metastases in general. Using 18F-FDG PET/CT we monitored patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing ipilimumab therapy during the course of treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT performed after two cycles of ipilimumab in predicting the final response to therapy.

Methods

In 22 patients suffering from unresectable metastatic melanoma, scheduled for ipilimumab treatment PET/CT scanning was performed before the start of treatment (baseline scan), after two cycles of treatment (early response) and at the end of treatment after four cycles (late response). Evaluation of the patient response to treatment on PET was based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1999 criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data are presented.

Results

After the end of treatment, 15 patients were characterized as having progressive metabolic disease (PMD) and five as having stable metabolic disease (SMD), and two patients showed a partial metabolic response (PMR). Early PET/CT performed after two ipilimumab cycles predicted treatment response in 13 of the 15 PMD patients, in five of the five SMD patients and in neither of the two PMR patients. Both patients with PMR showed pseudoprogression after the second cycle and were therefore wrongly classified. According to the patients’ clinical outcome, patients with late PMD had a median PFS of 3.6 months (mean 5.6 months), while patients with late SMD had a median PFS of 9.8 months (mean 9.0 months). In comparison, patients with early PMD had a median PFS of 2.7 months (mean 5.5 months) and patients with early SMD had a median PFS of 6.3 months (mean 7.5 months). The difference in PFS between the two groups was statistically significant for both early and late responses (log-rank p < 0.001). Median OS among patients with late PMD was 9.1 months (mean 11.2 months) and among those with late SMD 9.8 months (mean 10.7 months). The difference in OS between the two groups was statistically significant (log-rank p = 0.013). The median OS among patients with early PMD was 8.8 months (mean 12.0 months) and among those with early SMD 9.8 months (mean 10.0 months). The difference in OS between the two groups was statistically significant (log-rank p < 0.001).

Conclusion

18F-FDG PET/CT after two cycles of ipilimumab is highly predictive of the final treatment outcome in patients with PMD and SMD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fellner C. Ipilimumab (Yervoy) prolongs survival in advanced melanoma: serious side effects and a hefty price tag may limit its use. P T. 2012;37:503–30.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Skin cancers. Available at: http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2014.

  3. National Cancer Institute. SEER stat fact sheets: melanoma of the skin. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2014.

  4. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization. Malignant melanoma of skin. Available at: http://eu-cancer.iarc.fr/EUCAN/Cancer.aspx?Cancer=20. Accessed 25 Oct 2014.

  5. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;368:711–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lawrence DP, Rubin KM. Melanoma. In: Chabner BA, Lynch Jr TJ, Longo DL, editors. Harrison's manual of oncology. New York: McGraw Hill; 2008. p. 537–48.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eggermont AM, Kirkwood JM. Reevaluating the role of dacarbazine in metastatic melanoma: what have we learned in 30 years? Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:1825–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Petrella T, Quirt I, Verma S, Haynes AE, Charette M, Bak K, et al. Single-agent interleukin-2 in the treatment of metastatic melanoma: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33:484–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, O'Day S, Weber J, Garbe C, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2517–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dummer R, Hauschild A, Guggenheim M, Keilholz U, Pentheroudakis G; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23 Suppl 7:vii86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Melanoma Version 2.2014. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/melanoma.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2014.

  12. Brunet JF, Denizot F, Luciani MF, Roux-Dosseto M, Suzan M, Mattei MG, et al. A new member of the immunoglobulin superfamily – CTLA-4. Nature. 1987;328:267–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O'Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbé C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(23):7412–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dietlein M, Krug B, Groth W, Smolarz K, Scheidhauer K, Psaras T, et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in advanced stages of malignant melanoma: a comparison of ultrasonographic and radiological methods of diagnosis. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:255–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fuster D, Chiang S, Johnson G, Schuchter LM, Zhuang H, Alavi A. Is 18F-FDG PET more accurate than standard diagnostic procedures in the detection of suspected recurrent melanoma? J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1323–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cancer Council Australia/Australian Cancer Network/Ministry of Health, New Zealand. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Melanoma in Australia and New Zealand; 2008. Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp111.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2014.

  17. Holder Jr WD, White Jr RL, Zuger JH, Easton Jr EJ, Greene FL. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the detection of melanoma metastases. Ann Surg. 1998;227:764–69. discussion 769–771.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Swetter SM, Carroll LA, Johnson DL, Segall GM. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography for metastatic detection in melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:646–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schauwecker DS, Siddiqui AR, Wagner JD, Davidson D, Jung SH, Carlson KA, et al. Melanoma patients evaluated by four different positron emission tomography reconstruction techniques. Nucl Med Commun. 2003;24:281–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mijnhout GS, Hoekstra OS, van Tulder MW, Teule GJ, Devillé WL. Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in melanoma patients. Cancer. 2001;91:1530–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Medicare National Coverage Determinations Manual, Section 220.6. Available at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/ncd103c1_Part4.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2014.

  22. 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(13):1773–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Blodgett TM. Brain metastases. In: Blodgett TM, Ryan A, Almusa O, Papachristou M, Paidisetty S, editors. Specialty imaging. PET/CT oncologic imaging with correlative diagnostic CT. Salt Lake City: Amirsys; 2009. p. 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Strauss LG, Conti PS. The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:623–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mikolajczyk K, Szabatin M, Rudnicki P, Grodzki M, Burger C. A Java environment for medical image data analysis: initial application for brain PET quantitation. Med Inform (Lond). 1998;23:207–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein C, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ribas A, Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS, Radu C, Chmielowski B, Seja E, et al. Imaging of CTLA4 blockade-induced cell replication with 18F-FLT PET in patients with advanced melanoma treated with tremelimumab. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:340–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Visser EP, Hermsen R, van Hoorn BA, Timmer-Bonte JN, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1592–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schaefer NG, Veit-Haibach P, Soyka JD, Steinert HC, Stahel RA. Continued pemetrexed and platin-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, Dimitrijevic S, Dupont P, Nuyts J, et al. 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:2012–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zerizer I, Al-Nahhas A, Towey D, Tait P, Ariff B, Wasan H, et al. The role of early 18F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of progression-free survival after 90Y radioembolization: comparison with RECIST and tumour density criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1391–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ribas A, Chmielowski B, Glaspy JA. Do we need a different set of response assessment criteria for tumor immunotherapy? Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7116–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weber JS, O'Day S, Urba W, Powderly J, Nichol G, Yellin M, et al. Phase I/II study of ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5950–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dougan M, Dranoff G. Immune therapy for cancer. Annu Rev Immunol. 2009;27:83–117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Di Giacomo AM, Danielli R, Guidoboni M, Calabrò L, Carlucci D, Miracco C, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody, in patients with metastatic melanoma unresponsive to prior systemic treatments: clinical and immunological evidence from three patient cases. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58:1297–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilgenhof S, Du Four S, Everaert H, Neyns B. Patterns of response in patients with pretreated metastatic melanoma who received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in a European expanded access program: five illustrative case reports. Cancer Investig. 2012;30:712–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kang HC, Kim CY, Han JH, Choe GY, Kim JH, Kim JH, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with malignant gliomas treated with concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy: potential role of p53. J Neurooncol. 2011;102:157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Konstantinou MP, Dutriaux C, Gaudy-Marqueste C, Mortier L, Bedane C, Girard C, et al. Ipilimumab in melanoma patients with brain metastasis: a retrospective multicentre evaluation of 38 patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 2014;94:45–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. da Cruz LC Jr H, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, Gasparetto EL, Sorensen AG. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:1978–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Skougaard K, Nielsen D, Jensen BV, Hendel HW. Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1026–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christos Sachpekidis.

Additional information

Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss and Jessica C. Hassel contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sachpekidis, C., Larribere, L., Pan, L. et al. Predictive value of early 18F-FDG PET/CT studies for treatment response evaluation to ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma: preliminary results of an ongoing study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42, 386–396 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2944-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2944-y

Keywords

Navigation