Prospective International Cohort Study Demonstrates Inability of Interim PET to Predict Treatment Failure in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Robert Carr(King's College London), Stefano Fanti(IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola), Diana Páez(International Atomic Energy Agency), Juliano J. Cerci, Tamás Györke(Semmelweis University), Francisca Redondo(Fundación Arturo López Pérez), Tim P. Morris(University College London), Cláudio Meneghetti(Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo), Chirayu Auewarakul(Chulabhorn Hospital), Reena Nair(Tata Memorial Hospital), Charity Gorospe(St. Luke's Medical Center), June‐Key Chung(Seoul National University Hospital), Işınsu Kuzu(Ankara University), Monica Celli(IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola), Sumeet Gujral(Tata Memorial Hospital), Rose Ann Padua(Université Paris Cité), Maurizio Dondi(International Atomic Energy Agency), the IAEA Lymphoma Study Group
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
November 26, 2014
Cited by 77Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The International Atomic Energy Agency sponsored a large, multinational, prospective study to further define PET for risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and to test the hypothesis that international biological diversity or diversity of healthcare systems may influence the kinetics of treatment response as assessed by interim PET (I-PET). METHODS: Cancer centers in Brazil, Chile, Hungary, India, Italy, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand followed a common protocol based on treatment with R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, hydroxyadriamycin, vincristine, prednisolone with rituximab), with I-PET after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy and at the end of chemotherapy scored visually. RESULTS: Two-year survivals for all 327 patients (median follow-up, 35 mo) were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74%-83%) for event-free survival (EFS) and 86% (95% CI, 81%-89%) for overall survival (OS). Two hundred ten patients (64%) were I-PET-negative, and 117 (36%) were I-PET-positive. Two-year EFS was 90% (95% CI, 85%-93%) for I-PET-negative and 58% (95% CI, 48%-66%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 5.31 (95% CI, 3.29-8.56). Two-year OS was 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%) for I-PET-negative and 72% (95% CI, 63%-80%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 3.86 (95% CI, 2.12-7.03). On sequential monitoring, 192 of 312 (62%) patients had complete response at both I-PET and end-of-chemotherapy PET, with an EFS of 97% (95% CI, 92%-98%); 110 of these with favorable clinical indicators had an EFS of 98% (95% CI, 92%-100%). In contrast, the 107 I-PET-positive cases segregated into 2 groups: 58 (54%) achieved PET-negative complete remission at the end of chemotherapy (EFS, 86%; 95% CI, 73%-93%); 46% remained PET-positive (EFS, 35%; 95% CI, 22%-48%). Heterogeneity analysis found no significant difference between countries for outcomes stratified by I-PET. CONCLUSION: This large international cohort delivers 3 novel findings: treatment response assessed by I-PET is comparable across disparate healthcare systems, secondly a negative I-PET findings together with good clinical status identifies a group with an EFS of 98%, and thirdly a single I-PET scan does not differentiate chemoresistant lymphoma from complete response and cannot be used to guide risk-adapted therapy.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis