Logo Logo
Switch Language to German
Mittlmeier, Lena M.; Unterrainer, Marcus; Rodler, S.; Todica, A.; Albert, Nathalie L. ORCID: 0000-0003-0953-7624; Burgard, C.; Cyran, C. C.; Kunz, W. G.; Ricke, J.; Bartenstein, P.; Stief, C. G.; Ilhan, H.; Staehler, Michael (2020): 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for response assessment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma undergoing tyrosine kinase or checkpoint inhibitor therapy: preliminary results. In: European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
Creative Commons Attribution 2MB


INTRODUCTION Tyrosine kinase (TKI) and checkpoint inhibitors (CI) prolonged overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Early prediction of treatment response is highly desirable for the individualization of patient management and improvement of therapeutic outcome; however, serum biochemistry is unable to predict therapeutic efficacy. Therefore, we compared 18F-PSMA-1007 PET imaging for response assessment in mRCC patients undergoing TKI or CI therapy compared to CT-based response assessment as the current imaging reference standard. METHODS 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was performed in mRCC patients prior to initiation of systemic treatment and 8~weeks after therapy initiation. Treatment response was evaluated separately on 18F-PSMA-PET and CT. Changes on PSMA-PET (SUVmean) were assessed on a per patient basis using a modified PERCIST scoring system. Complete response (CRPET) was defined as absence of any uptake in all target lesions on posttreatment PET. Partial response (PRPET) was defined as decrease in summed SUVmean of > 30%. The appearance of new, PET-positive lesions or an increase in summed SUVmean of > 30% was defined as progressive disease (PDPET). A change in summed SUVmean of ± 30% defined stable disease (SDPET). RECIST 1.1 criteria were used for response assessment on CT. Results of radiographic response assessment on PSMA-PET and CT were compared. RESULTS Overall, 11 mRCC patients undergoing systemic treatment were included. At baseline PSMA-PET1, all mRCC patients showed at least one PSMA-avid lesion. On follow-up PET2, 3 patients showed CRPET, 3 PRPET, 4 SDPET, and 1 PDPET. According to RECIST 1.1, 1 patient showed PRCT, 9 SDCT, and 1 PDCT. Overall, concordant classifications were found in only 2 cases (2 SDCT + PET). Patients with CRPET on PET were classified as 3 SDCT on CT using RECIST 1.1. By contrast, the patient classified as PRCT on CT showed PSMA uptake without major changes during therapy (SDPET). However, among 9 patients with SDCT on CT, 3 were classified as CRPET, 3 as PRPET, 1 as PDPET, and only 2 as SDPET on PSMA-PET. CONCLUSION On PSMA-PET, heterogeneous courses were observed during systemic treatment in mRCC patients with highly diverging results compared to RECIST 1.1. In the light of missing biomarkers for early response assessment, PSMA-PET might allow more precise response assessment to systemic treatment, especially in patients classified as SD on CT.