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 [ 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 [ 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

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Spinal Bone Metastases

The spine is a common site of involvement in patients with bone metastases. Apart from pain, hypercalcemia, and pathologic fracture, progressive tumor can result in neurologic deterioration caused by spinal cord compression or cauda equina involvement. The treatment of spinal bone metastases depends on histology, site of disease, extent of epidural disease, extent of metastases elsewhere, and neurologic status. Treatment recommendations must weigh the risk-benefit profile of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the particular individual's circumstance, including neurologic status, performance status, extent of spinal disease, stability of the spine, extra-spinal disease status, and life expectancy. Patients with spinal instability should be evaluated for surgical intervention. Research studies are needed that evaluate the combination or sequencing of localized therapies with systemic therapies including chemotherapy, hormonal therapy (HT), osteoclast inhibitors (OI), and radiopharmaceuticals. The roles of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the management of spinal oligometastasis, radioresistant spinal metastasis, and previously irradiated but progressive spinal metastasis are emerging, but more research is needed to validate the findings from retrospective studies. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140115/1/jpm.2012.0376.pd

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Non-Spine Bone Metastases

Abstract Bone is one of the most common sites of metastatic spread of malignancy, with possible deleterious effects including pain, hypercalcemia, and pathologic fracture. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) remains the mainstay for treatment of painful bone metastases. EBRT may be combined with other local therapies like surgery or with systemic treatments like chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, osteoclast inhibitors, or radiopharmaceuticals. EBRT is not commonly recommended for patients with asymptomatic bone metastases unless they are associated with a risk of pathologic fracture. For those who do receive EBRT, appropriate fractionation schemes include 30?Gy in 10 fractions, 24?Gy in 6 fractions, 20?Gy in 5 fractions, or a single 8?Gy fraction. Single fraction treatment maximizes convenience, while fractionated treatment courses are associated with a lower incidence of retreatment. The appropriate postoperative dose fractionation following surgical stabilization is uncertain. Reirradiation with EBRT may be safe and provide pain relief, though retreatment might create side effect risks which warrant its use as part of a clinical trial. All patients with bone metastases should be considered for concurrent management by a palliative care team, with patients whose life expectancy is less than six months appropriate for hospice evaluation. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98458/1/jpm%2E2011%2E0512.pd

90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan with or without low-dose gemcitabine: A phase Ib study in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer after two or more prior therapies

AbstractBackgroundFor patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, there are no approved or established treatments beyond the 2nd line. A Phase Ib study of fractionated radioimmunotherapy was undertaken in this setting, administering 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan (yttrium-90-radiolabelled humanised antibody targeting pancreatic adenocarcinoma mucin) with or without low radiosensitising doses of gemcitabine.MethodsFifty-eight patients with three (2–7) median prior treatments were treated on Arm A (N=29, 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan, weekly 6.5mCi/m2doses×3, plus gemcitabine, weekly 200mg/m2 doses×4 starting 1week earlier) or Arm B (N=29, 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan alone, weekly 6.5mCi/m2doses×3), repeating cycles after 4-week delays. Safety was the primary endpoint; efficacy was also evaluated.ResultsCytopaenias (predominantly transient thrombocytopenia) were the only significant toxicities. Fifty-three patients (27 Arm A, 26 Arm B, 91% overall) completed ⩾1 full treatment cycles, with 23 (12 Arm A, 11 Arm B; 40%) receiving multiple cycles, including seven (6 Arm A, 1 Arm B; 12%) given 3–9 cycles. Two patients in Arm A had partial responses by RECIST criteria. Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS) appeared improved in Arm A versus B (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29–0.86; P=0.017, log-rank) and the median OS for Arm A versus Arm B increased to 7.9 versus 3.4months with multiple cycles (HR 0.32, P=0.004), including three patients in Arm A surviving >1year.ConclusionsClinical studies of 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan combined with low-dose gemcitabine appear feasible in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients beyond 2nd line and a Phase III trial of this combination is now underway in this setting

Comparison of the clonogenic survival of A549 non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma cells after irradiation with low-dose-rate beta particles and high-dose-rate X-rays

Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death. Among the new modalities to treat cancer, internal radiotherapy seems to be very promising. However, the achievable dose-rate is two orders of magnitude lower than the one used in conventional external radiotherapy, and data has to be collected to evaluate the cell response to highlight the potential effectiveness of low-dose-rate beta particles irradiation. This work investigates the phosphorus beta irradiation ( P) dose response on the clonogenicity of human A549 non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma cells and compares it to high-dose-rate X-irradiations results. Materials and methods: Cell survival was evaluated by a colony forming assay eight days after low-dose-rate P beta irradiations (0.8 Gy/h) and high-dose-rate X-ray irradiations (0.855 Gy/min). Results: Survival curves were obtained for both types of irradiations, and showed hyper-radiosensitivity at very low doses. Radiosensitivity parameters were obtained by using the linear-quadratic and induced-repair models. Conclusions: Comparison with high-dose-rate X-rays shows a similar surviving fraction, confirming the effectiveness of beta particles for tumor sterilization. © 2012 Informa UK, Ltd

Contraindications of sentinel lymph node biopsy: Áre there any really?

BACKGROUND: One of the most exciting and talked about new surgical techniques in breast cancer surgery is the sentinel lymph node biopsy. It is an alternative procedure to standard axillary lymph node dissection, which makes possible less invasive surgery and side effects for patients with early breast cancer that wouldn't benefit further from axillary lymph node clearance. Sentinel lymph node biopsy helps to accurately evaluate the status of the axilla and the extent of disease, but also determines appropriate adjuvant treatment and long-term follow-up. However, like all surgical procedures, the sentinel lymph node biopsy is not appropriate for each and every patient. METHODS: In this article we review the absolute and relative contraindications of the procedure in respect to clinically positive axilla, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor size, multicentric and multifocal disease, in situ carcinoma, pregnancy, age, body-mass index, allergies to dye and/or radio colloid and prior breast and/or axillary surgery. RESULTS: Certain conditions involving host factors and tumor biologic characteristics may have a negative impact on the success rate and accuracy of the procedure. The overall fraction of patients unsuitable or with multiple risk factors that may compromise the success of the sentinel lymph node biopsy, is very small. Nevertheless, these patients need to be successfully identified, appropriately advised and cautioned, and so do the surgeons that perform the procedure. CONCLUSION: When performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary team, the SLNB is a highly effective and accurate alternative to standard level I and II axillary clearance in the vast majority of patients with early breast cancer