Back to Search Start Over

Utility of (18)fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for prognosis and response assessments in a phase 2 study of romidepsin in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma

Authors :
Lauren Pinter-Brown
Steven M. Horwitz
John Balser
Bertrand Coiffier
Andrei R. Shustov
Jean Nichols
Barbara Balser
Matthew Greenwood
F. Morschhauser
Henry Miles Prince
Lubomir Sokol
Francine M. Foss
Swaminathan P. Iyer
Dolores Caballero
Barbara Pro
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC)
Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL)
Yale Cancer Center
Yale University School of Medicine
Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH)
Universidad de Salamanca
Groupe de Recherche sur les formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées - ULR 7365 (GRITA)
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [Lille] (CHRU Lille)-Université de Lille
Harbor UCLA Medical Center [Torrance, Ca.]
Houston Methodist Hospital [Houston, TX, USA]
University of Washington [Seattle]
University of Liverpool
Jefferson University Hospitals
Université de Lille
CHU Lille
Groupe de Recherche sur les formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées (GRITA) - EA 7365
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC]
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Departement de Neurologie [HCL]
Royal North Shore Hospital [RNSH]
Groupe de Recherche sur les formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées - ULR 7365 [GRITA]
Yale School of Medicine [New Haven, Connecticut] (YSM)
Université de Lille-Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [Lille] (CHRU Lille)
Source :
Annals of Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Elsevier, 2015, 26 (4), pp.774-779. ⟨10.1093/annonc/mdv010⟩, Annals of Oncology, 2015, 26 (4), pp.774-779. ⟨10.1093/annonc/mdv010⟩
Publication Year :
2015
Publisher :
HAL CCSD, 2015.

Abstract

International audience; BACKGROUND: For patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), the value of (18)fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scans for assessing prognosis and response to treatment remains unclear. The utility of FDG-PET, in addition to conventional radiology, was examined as a planned exploratory end point in the pivotal phase 2 trial of romidepsin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory PTCL.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received romidepsin at a dose of 14 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles. The primary end point was the rate of confirmed/unconfirmed complete response (CR/CRu) as assessed by International Workshop Criteria (IWC) using conventional radiology. For the exploratory PET end point, patients with at least baseline FDG-PET scans were assessed by IWC + PET criteria.RESULTS: Of 130 patients, 110 had baseline FDG-PET scans, and 105 were PET positive at baseline. The use of IWC + PET criteria increased the objective response rate to 30% compared with 26% by conventional radiology. Durations of response were well differentiated by both conventional radiology response criteria [CR/CRu versus partial response (PR), P = 0.0001] and PET status (negative versus positive, P < 0.0001). Patients who achieved CR/CRu had prolonged progression-free survival (PFS, median 25.9 months) compared with other response groups (P = 0.0007). Patients who achieved PR or stable disease (SD) had similar PFS (median 7.2 and 6.3 months, respectively, P = 0.6427). When grouping PR and SD patients by PET status, patients with PET-negative versus PET-positive disease had a median PFS of 18.2 versus 7.1 months (P = 0.0923).CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of FDG-PET does not obviate conventional staging, but may aid in determining prognosis and refine response assessments for patients with PTCL, particularly for those who do not achieve CR/CRu by conventional staging. The optimal way to incorporate FDG-PET scans for patients with PTCL remains to be determined.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00426764.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
09237534 and 15698041
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Annals of Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Elsevier, 2015, 26 (4), pp.774-779. ⟨10.1093/annonc/mdv010⟩, Annals of Oncology, 2015, 26 (4), pp.774-779. ⟨10.1093/annonc/mdv010⟩
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....1b4a201f100cf4d3fad528bca7409a14