Virtual Library
Start Your Search
M. Bauckneht
Author of
-
+
MA10 - Facing the Real World: New Staging System and Response Evaluation in Immunotherapy (ID 393)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:P. Kosmidis
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 14:20 - 15:50, Stolz 2
-
+
MA10.09 - Comparison between CT Scan Evaluation Criteria and PERCIST for Evaluation of Immune Check-Point Inhibitors Response (ID 6227)
15:20 - 15:26 | Author(s): M. Bauckneht
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Immune check-point inhibitors (ICPIs) exert their activity by blocking inhibitory signaling and therefore enhancing T-cell activity against tumor cells; however, this peculiar mechanism of action might lead to many difficulties in evaluating clinical response with the usual CT imaging due to inflammatory patterns that could confuse the evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess the role of FDG-PET to support clinical decision based on CT scan.
Methods:
From May 2015 to April 2016, 74 patients with advanced pretreated NSCLC received at least one dose of nivolumab (3 mg/Kg every 14 days) within a single-institutional translational research trial. Among these, 58 patients were evaluable for response assessment. The patients underwent CT scan and FDG-PET every four cycles and, in case of progressive disease, an additional evaluation was performed after two further cycles in order to confirm it. We evaluated the response to treatment by CT scan with RECIST criteria, Immuno-related Response Criteria (irRC), WHO criteria and immunoRECIST criteria, while the metabolic response has been determined with PERCIST criteria. Finally, we determined the concordance in terms of response between CT evaluation criteria and metabolic response obtained with PERCIST; concordance was calculated with kappa value.
Results:
Our findings showed a low concordance of all CT scan evaluation criteria to PERCIST, the best concordance being between PERCIST and RECIST (K=0.500) and the worst agreement being between PERCIST and irRC (K=0.295) . In particular, PERCIST seems to underestimate the progressive disease (PD). In fact, between 46% and 55% of patients, defined in progression with CT evaluation criteria were considered in stable metabolic disease (SMD) by PERCIST; among these, 50% of patients in the RECIST PD group and 80% of RECIST SD patients were alive at 6 months. Furthermore, in our sample, between 9% and 18% of patients were considered in progression with CT evaluation criteria when they were in partial response with PERCIST; these patients were still alive with a survival similar to those who defined in partial response with RECIST (>9 months).
Conclusion:
FDG-PET evaluation by PERCIST could not be helpful when SMD is reported, in fact, patients that have a RECIST PD maintain a poor prognosis compared to RECIST SD between the patients define as SMD. Conversely, PERCIST evaluation could be informative when it define a partial response, specially when RECIST criteria show a PD.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
