Design Considerations for using PET as a Response Measure in Single Site and Multicenter Clinical Trials

Academic Radiology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 184-190

  Doot, Robert K ^a   Kurland, Brenda F ^b,c   Kinahan, Paul E ^a   Mankoff, David A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^c SEATTLE CANCER CARE ALLIANCE   (United States)

Author keywords

FDG PET; Multicenter trial design; Sample size; SUV

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DYNAMICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; KINETICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; MULTICENTER STUDY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84855272218     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.008     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Juweid M.E., Cheson B.D. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006, 354:496-507.
2. Wahl R.L., Jacene H., Kasamon Y., et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009, 50(Suppl 1):122S-150S.
3. Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J., et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). EurJCancer 2009, 45:228-247.
4. Young H., Baum R., Cremerius U., 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, 35:1773-1782.
5. Shankar L.K., Hoffman J.M., Bacharach S., et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006, 47:1059-1066.
6. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009, 50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.
7. Weber W., Ziegler S., Thodtmann R., et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999, 40:1771-1777.
8. Weber W.A. Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:3282-3292.
9. Wahl R.L., Zasadny K., Helvie M., et al. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: Initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11:2101-2111.
10. Dunnwald L.K., Gralow J.R., Ellis G.K., et al. Tumor metabolism and blood flow changes by positron emission tomography: relation to survival in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:4449-4457.
11. Ellis M.J., Gao F., Dehdashti F., et al. Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study. JAMA 2009, 302:774-780.
12. Minn H., Zasadny K.R., Quint L.E., et al. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology 1995, 196:167-173.
13. Nakamoto Y., Zasadny K.R., Minn H., et al. Reproducibility of common semi-quantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biol 2002, 4:171-178.
14. Krak N.C., Boellaard R., Hoekstra O.S., et al. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005, 32:294-301.
15. Nahmias C., Wahl L.M. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008, 49:1804-1808.
16. Doot R.K., Scheuermann J.S., Christian P.E., et al. Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT. Med Phys 2010, 37:6035-6046.
17. Fahey F.H., Kinahan P.E., Doot R.K., et al. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys 2010, 37:3660-3666.
18. Lockhart C.M., MacDonald L.R., Alessio A.M., et al. Quantifying and reducing the effect of calibration error on variability of PET/CT standardized uptake value measurements. J Nucl Med 2011, 52:218-224.
19. Takahashi Y., Oriuchi N., Otake H., et al. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners. Ann Nucl Med 2008, 22:543-548.
20. Velasquez L.M., Boellaard R., Kollia G., et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:1646-1654.
21. Freedman N.M., Sundaram S.K., Kurdziel K., et al. Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003, 30:46-53.
22. Lammertsma A.A., Hoekstra C.J., Giaccone G., et al. How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006, 33(Suppl 13):16-21.
23. McDermott G.M., Welch A., Staff R.T., et al. Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 2007, 102:75-84.
24. Doot R.K., Dunnwald L.K., Schubert E.K., et al. Dynamic and static approaches to quantifying 18F-FDG uptake for measuring cancer response to therapy, including the effect of granulocyte CSF. J Nucl Med 2007, 48:920-925.
25. Choi M., Heilbrun L.K., Venkatramanamoorthy R., et al. Using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to monitor clinical outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2010, 33:257-261.
26. Dunnwald L.K., Doot R.K., Specht J.M., et al. PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res 2011, 17:2400-2409.
27. Zasadny K.R., Wahl R.L. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues atPET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology 1993, 189:847-850.
28. Jacene H.A., Leboulleux S., Baba S., et al. Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:1760-1769.
29. Hoetjes N.J., van Velden F.H., Hoekstra O.S., et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 37:1679-1687.