Quantitation of cancer treatment response by 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT: multi-center assessment of measurement variability using AUTO-PERCIST™

Joint EANM/SNMMI/ANZSNM practice guidelines/procedure standards on recommended use of [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging during immunomodulatory treatments in patients with solid tumors version 1.0

PURPOSE

The goal of this guideline/procedure standard is to assist nuclear medicine physicians, other nuclear medicine professionals, oncologists or other medical specialists for recommended use of [18F]FDG PET/CT in oncological patients undergoing immunotherapy, with special focus on response assessment in solid tumors.

METHODS

In a cooperative effort between the EANM, the SNMMI and the ANZSNM, clinical indications, recommended imaging procedures and reporting standards have been agreed upon and summarized in this joint guideline/procedure standard.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of immuno-oncology is rapidly evolving, and this guideline/procedure standard should not be seen as definitive, but rather as a guidance document standardizing the use and interpretation of [18F]FDG PET/CT during immunotherapy. Local variations to this guideline should be taken into consideration.

PREAMBLE

The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional non-profit medical association founded in 1985 to facilitate worldwide communication among individuals pursuing clinical and academic excellence in nuclear medicine. The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) is an international scientific and professional organization founded in 1954 to promote science, technology and practical application of nuclear medicine. The Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine (ANZSNM), founded in 1969, represents the major professional society fostering the technical and professional development of nuclear medicine practice across Australia and New Zealand. It promotes excellence in the nuclear medicine profession through education, research and a commitment to the highest professional standards. EANM, SNMMI and ANZSNM members are physicians, technologists, physicists and scientists specialized in the research and clinical practice of nuclear medicine. All three societies will periodically put forth new standards/guidelines for nuclear medicine practice to help advance the science of nuclear medicine and improve service to patients. Existing standards/guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each standard/guideline, representing a policy statement by the EANM/SNMMI/ANZSNM, has undergone a thorough consensus process, entailing extensive review. These societies recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging requires particular training and skills, as described in each document. These standards/guidelines are educational tools designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate and effective nuclear medicine care for patients. These guidelines are consensus documents based on current knowledge. They are not intended to be inflexible rules or requirements of practice, nor should they be used to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the EANM, SNMMI and ANZSNM caution against the use of these standards/guidelines in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by medical professionals considering the unique circumstances of each case. Thus, there is no implication that an action differing from what is laid out in the guidelines/procedure standards, standing alone, is below standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in the standards/guidelines when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of the guidelines/procedure standards. The practice of medicine involves not only the science, but also the art of dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible for general guidelines to consistently allow for an accurate diagnosis to be reached or a particular treatment response to be predicted. Therefore, it should be recognized that adherence to these standards/ guidelines will not ensure a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that practitioners follow a reasonable course of action, based on their level of training, current knowledge, clinical practice guidelines, available resources and the needs/context of the patient being treated. The sole purpose of these guidelines is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective. The present guideline/procedure standard was developed collaboratively by the EANM, the SNMMI and the ANZSNM, with the support of international experts in the field. They summarize also the views of the Oncology and Theranostics and the Inflammation and Infection Committees of the EANM, as well as the procedure standards committee of the SNMMI, and reflect recommendations for which the EANM and SNMMI cannot be held responsible. The recommendations should be taken into the context of good practice of nuclear medicine and do not substitute for national and international legal or regulatory provisions.

The VISION Forward: Recognition and Implication of PSMA-/18F-FDG+ mCRPC

Metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is incurable. The expression of the transmembrane protein prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is markedly increased in most mCRPC lesions. PSMA has been recognized as a viable biologic target for imaging and radionuclide therapy (theranostics) in mCRPC. The PET agents 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-DCFPyL have recently been approved for imaging evaluation of patients with suspected metastasis who are candidates for initial definitive therapy and patients with suspected recurrence based on elevated serum prostate-specific antigen level. Radioligand therapy (RLT) with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-vipivotide tetraxetan, Pluvicto, Novartis/AAA) was approved on March 23, 2022, based on the favorable results of the VISION trial. It has been recognized that PET imaging of PSMA expression and glucose metabolism (with 18F-FDG) provides a more comprehensive assessment of the tumor burden and heterogeneity. However, there are many unresolved issues that surround whether or not imaging with 18F-FDG PET is advantageous in the clinical setting of PSMA RLT in mCRPR.

Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group - ESOI Joint Paper

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical trials, and they are widely used and accepted by regulatory agencies. This expert statement discusses the principles underlying RECIST, as well as their reproducibility and limitations. While the RECIST framework may not be perfect, the scientific bases for the anticancer drugs that have been approved using a RECIST-based surrogate endpoint remain valid. Importantly, changes in measurement have to meet thresholds defined by RECIST for response classification within thus partly circumventing the problems of measurement variability. The RECIST framework also applies to clinical patients in individual settings even though the relationship between tumour size changes and outcome from cohort studies is not necessarily translatable to individual cases. As reproducibility of RECIST measurements is impacted by reader experience, choice of target lesions and detection/interpretation of new lesions, it can result in patients changing response categories when measurements are near threshold values or if new lesions are missed or incorrectly interpreted. There are several situations where RECIST will fail to evaluate treatment-induced changes correctly; knowledge and understanding of these is crucial for correct interpretation. Also, some patterns of response/progression cannot be correctly documented by RECIST, particularly in relation to organ-site (e.g. bone without associated soft-tissue lesion) and treatment type (e.g. focal therapies). These require specialist reader experience and communication with oncologists to determine the actual impact of the therapy and best evaluation strategy. In such situations, alternative imaging markers for tumour response may be used but the sources of variability of individual imaging techniques need to be known and accounted for. Communication between imaging experts and oncologists regarding the level of confidence in a biomarker is essential for the correct interpretation of a biomarker and its application to clinical decision-making. Though measurement automation is desirable and potentially reduces the variability of results, associated technical difficulties must be overcome, and human adjudications may be required.