[18F]FDG and [18F]FES PET/CT Imaging as a Biomarker for Therapy Effect in Patients with Metastatic ER+ Breast Cancer Undergoing Treatment with Rintodestrant

PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) with 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol ([18F]FES) allows assessment of whole body estrogen receptor (ER) expression. The aim of this study was to investigate [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) and [18F]FES PET/CT imaging for response prediction and monitoring of drug activity in patients with metastatic ER+ breast cancer undergoing treatment with the selective estrogen receptor downregulator (SERD) rintodestrant.PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this trial (NCT03455270), PET/CT imaging was performed at baseline ([18F]FDG and [18F]FES), during treatment and at time of progression (only [18F]FES). Visual, quantitative and mutational analysis was performed to derive a heterogeneity score (HS) and assess tracer uptake in lesions, in relation to the mutation profile. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTS: The HS and PFS in the entire group did not correlate (n=16, Spearman's rho, P=0.06), but patients with a low HS (&lt;25.0%, n=4) had a PFS of &gt;5 months whereas patients with no [18F]FES uptake (HS 100.0%, n =3) had a PFS of &lt;2 months. [18F]FES uptake was not affected by ESR1 mutations. On-treatment [18F]FES PET/CT scans showed no [18F]FES uptake in any of the baseline [18F]FES positive lesions. At progression, [18F]FES uptake remained blocked in patients scanned ≤1-2 half-lives of rintodestrant whereas it restored in patients scanned ≥5 days after end of treatment.CONCLUSION: Absence of ER expression on [18F]FES PET is a predictor for no response to rintodestrant. [18F]FES uptake during treatment and at time of progression is useful to monitor the (reversible) effect of therapy and continued mode of action of SERDs.</p

Imaging standardisation in metastatic colorectal cancer: A joint EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR expert consensus recommendation

Background: Treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumour burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors provide a framework on reporting and interpretation of imaging findings yet offer no guidance on a standardised imaging protocol tailored to patients with mCRC. Imaging protocol hetero-geneity remains a challenge for the reproducibility of conventional imaging end-points and is an obstacle for research on novel imaging end-points.Patients and methods: Acknowledging the recently highlighted potential of radiomics and arti-ficial intelligence tools as decision support for patient care in mCRC, a multidisciplinary, international and expert panel of imaging specialists was formed to find consensus on mCRC imaging protocols using the Delphi method.Results: Under the guidance of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Groups, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), the EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR core imaging protocol was identified.Conclusion: This consensus protocol attempts to promote standardisation and to diminish variations in patient preparation, scan acquisition and scan reconstruction. We anticipate that this standardisation will increase reproducibility of radiomics and artificial intelligence studies and serve as a catalyst for future research on imaging end-points. For ongoing and future mCRC trials, we encourage principal investigators to support the dissemination of these im-aging standards across recruiting centres. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

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 reponse 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

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

none38siContext: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. Evidence acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. Evidence synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. Patient summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).noneWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; MacLennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B LWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; Maclennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

Context The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. Objective To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. Evidence acquisition Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Evidence synthesis Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40–0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5–6 yr of 4.9–16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53–1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63–1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5–6 yr of 6.4–7% across the two RCTs. Conclusions EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. Patient summary We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear

Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review

Context The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. Objective To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. Evidence acquisition A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. Evidence synthesis We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. Conclusions Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. Patient summary We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact

Genetic aspects and molecular testing in prostate cancer: a report from a Dutch multidisciplinary consensus meeting

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if >75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hered-itary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveil-lance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germ -line pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as fol-lows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).Experimentele farmacotherapi

Dual-Phase PET-CT to Differentiate [F-18]Fluoromethylcholine Uptake in Reactive and Malignant Lymph Nodes in Patients with Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: To investigate whether time-trends of enhanced [(18)F]Fluoromethylcholine ([(18)F]FCH) in lymph nodes (LN) of prostate cancer (PCa) patients can help to discriminate reactive from malignant ones, and whether single time point standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements also suffice. PROCEDURES: 25 PCa patients with inguinal (presumed benign) and enlarged pelvic LN (presumed malignant) showing enhanced [(18)F]FCH uptake at dual-phase PET-CT were analyzed. Associations between LN status (benign versus malignant) and SUV(max) and SUV(meanA50), determined at 2 min (early) and 30 min (late) post injection, were assessed. We considered two time-trends of [(18)F]FCH uptake: type A (SUV early &gt; SUV late) and type B (SUV late ≥ SUV early). Histopathology and/or follow-up were used to confirm the assumption that LN with type A pattern are benign, and LN with type B pattern malignant. RESULTS: Analysis of 54 nodes showed that LN status, time-trends, and 'late' (30 min p.i.) SUV(max) and SUV(meanA50) parameters were strongly associated (P&lt;0.0001). SUV(max) relative difference was the best LN status predictor. All but one inguinal LN showed a decreasing [(18)F]FCH uptake over time (pattern A), while 95% of the pelvic nodes presented a stable or increasing uptake (pattern B) type. CONCLUSIONS: Time-trends of enhanced [(18)F]FCH uptake can help to characterize lymph nodes in prostate cancer patients. Single time-point SUV measurements, 30 min p.i., may be a reasonable alternative for predicting benign versus malignant status of lymph nodes, but this remains to be validated in non-enlarged pelvic lymph nodes

Imaging standardization in metastatic colorectal cancer : a joint EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR expert consensus recommendation

Background: Treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumor burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) provide a framework on reporting and interpretation of imaging findings yet offer no guidance on a standardized imaging protocol tailored to mCRC patients. Imaging protocol heterogeneity remains a challenge for the reproducibility of conventional imaging endpoints and is an obstacle for research on novel imaging endpoints. Patients and methods: Acknowledging the recently highlighted potential of radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI) tools as decision support for patient care in mCRC, a multidisciplinary, international, and expert panel of imaging specialists was formed to find consensus on mCRC imaging protocols using the Delphi method. Results: Under the guidance of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Groups, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), the EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR core imaging protocol was identified. Conclusion: This consensus protocol attempts to promote standardization and to diminish variations in patient preparation, scan acquisition and scan reconstruction. We anticipate that this standardization will increase reproducibility of radiomics and AI studies and serve as a catalyst for future research on imaging endpoints. For ongoing and future mCRC trials, we encourage principal investigators to support the dissemination of these imaging standards across recruiting centers.peer-reviewe