Published in

Elsevier, Annals of Oncology, 4(26), p. 774-779, 2015

DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv010

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Utility of18fluoro-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

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

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). Conclusion(s): 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.