OTHR-14. TREATMENT MONITORING OF IMMUNOTHERAPY AND TARGETED THERAPY USING FET PET IN PATIENTS WITH MELANOMA AND LUNG CANCER BRAIN METASTASES: INITIAL EXPERIENCES. (12th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Galldiks, Norbert; Abdulla, Diana; Scheffler, Matthias; Schweinsberg, Viola; Schlaak, Max; Kreuzberg, Nicole; Landsberg, Jenny; Lohmann, Philipp; Ceccon, Garry; Werner, Jan-Michael; Celik, Eren; Ruge, Maximilian; Kocher, Martin; Marnitz, Simone; Fink, Gereon; Langen, Karl-Josef; Wolf, Juergen; Mauch, Cornelia
• Is Part Of: Neuro-oncology advances. Volume 1(2019)Supplement 1
• Page Start: i21
• Page End: i21
• Publication Date: 2019-08-12
• Subjects: 616.99481
• DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdz014.091
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2632-2498

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Due to the lack of specificity of contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI, both the response assessment and differentiation of progression from pseudoprogression (PsP) following immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or targeted therapy (TT) may be challenging, especially when ICI or TT is applied in combination with radiotherapy (RT). Here, we evaluated the value of amino acid PET using O-(2-[ 18 F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) as a problem-solving tool in comparison to CE-MRI in patients with brain metastases (BM) secondary to malignant melanoma (MM) and NSCLC. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 31 patients with 74 BM secondary to MM (n=20 with 42 BM) and NSCLC (n=11 with 32 BM) who underwent 52 FET-PET scans during the course of disease. All patients had RT prior to ICI or TT initiation (61%) or RT concurrent to ICI or TT (39%). In 13 patients, FET-PET was performed for treatment response assessment of ICI or TT using baseline and follow-up scans (median time between scans, 4.2 months). In the remaining 18 patients, FET-PET was used for the differentiation of progression from PsP related to RT plus ICI or TT. In all BM, metabolic activity on FET-PET was evaluated by calculation of tumor/brain ratios. FET-PET imaging findings were compared to CE-MRI and correlated to the clinical follow-up or neuropathological findings after neuroimaging. RESULTS: In 4 of 13 patients (31%), FET-PET provided additional information for treatment response evaluation beyond the information provided by CE-MRI alone. Furthermore, responding patients on FET-PET had a median stable clinical follow-up of 10 months. In 10 of 18 patients (56%) with CE-MRI findings suggesting progression, FET-PET detected PsP. In 9 of these 10 patients, PsP was confirmed by a median stable clinical follow-up of 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: FET-PET may add valuable information for treatment monitoring in individual BM patients undergoing RT in combination with ICI or TT.