STatistically Assigned Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (STARCIST)

PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues

Positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) has long been discussed as a promising modality for response evaluation in cancer. When designing respective clinical trials, several design issues have to be addressed, especially the number/timing of PET/CT scans, the approach for quantifying metabolic activity, and the final translation of measurements into a rule. It is unclear how well these issues have been tackled in quest of an optimised use of PET/CT in response evaluation. Medline via Ovid and Science Citation Index via Web of Science were systematically searched for articles from 2015 on cancer patients scanned with PET/CT before and during/after treatment. Reports were categorised as being either developmental or evaluative, i.e. focusing on either the establishment or the evaluation of a rule discriminating responders from non-responders. Of 124 included papers, 112 (90 %) were accuracy and/or prognostic studies; the remainder were response-curve studies. No randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were prospective (62 %) and from single centres (85 %); median number of patients was 38.5 (range 5-354). Most (69 %) of the studies employed only one post-baseline scan. Quantification was mainly based on SUVmax (91 %), while change over time was most frequently used to combine measurements into a rule (79 %). Half of the reports were categorised as developmental, the other half evaluative. Most development studies assessed only one element (35/62, 56 %), most frequently the choice of cut-off points (25/62, 40 %). In summary, the majority of studies did not address the essential open issues in establishing PET/CT for response evaluation. Reasonably sized multicentre studies are needed to systematically compare the many different options when using PET/CT for response evaluation.

Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET

Quantitative analysis can potentially improve the accuracy and consistency of ¹⁸F-FDG PET, particularly for the assessment of tumor response to treatment. Although not without limitations, SUV has emerged as the predominant metric for tumor quantification with ¹⁸F-FDG PET. Growing literature suggests that the difference between SUVs measured before and after treatment can be used to predict tumor response at an early stage. SUV is, however, associated with multiple sources of variability, and to best use SUV for response assessment, an understanding of the repeatability of the technique is required. Test-retest studies involve repeated scanning of the same patient on the same scanner using the same protocol no more than a few days apart and provide basic information on the repeatability of the technique. Multiple test-retest studies have been performed to assess SUV repeatability, although a comparison of reports is complicated by the use of different methodologies and statistical metrics. This article reviews the available data, addressing issues such as different repeatability metrics, relative units, log transformation, and asymmetric limits of repeatability. When acquired with careful attention to protocol, tumor SUV has a within-subject coefficient of variation of approximately 10%. In a response assessment setting, SUV reductions of more than 25% and increases of more than 33% are unlikely to be due to measurement variability. Broader margins may be required for sites with less rigorous protocol compliance, but in general, SUV is a highly repeatable imaging biomarker that is ideally suited to monitoring tumor response to treatment in individual patients.

Brown Adipose Reporting Criteria in Imaging STudies (BARCIST 1.0): Recommendations for Standardized FDG-PET/CT Experiments in Humans

Human brown adipose tissue (BAT) presence, metabolic activity, and estimated mass are typically measured by imaging [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in response to cold exposure in regions of the body expected to contain BAT, using positron emission tomography combined with X-ray computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). Efforts to describe the epidemiology and biology of human BAT are hampered by diverse experimental practices, making it difficult to directly compare results among laboratories. An expert panel was assembled by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases on November 4, 2014 to discuss minimal requirements for conducting FDG-PET/CT experiments of human BAT, data analysis, and publication of results. This resulted in Brown Adipose Reporting Criteria in Imaging STudies (BARCIST 1.0). Since there are no fully validated best practices at this time, panel recommendations are meant to enhance comparability across experiments, but not to constrain experimental design or the questions that can be asked.