68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation and its Prognostic Value in Multiple Myeloma: Comparison With IMWG and 18 F-FDG-Based Response.

IF 9.6 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Clinical Nuclear Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-07 DOI:10.1097/RLU.0000000000005731
Harneet Kaur, Suraj Kumar, Ankit Watts, Charanpreet Singh, Man Updesh Singh Sachdeva, Sreejesh Sreedharanunni, Rajender Kumar, Pankaj Malhotra, Baljinder Singh
{"title":"68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation and its Prognostic Value in Multiple Myeloma: Comparison With IMWG and 18 F-FDG-Based Response.","authors":"Harneet Kaur, Suraj Kumar, Ankit Watts, Charanpreet Singh, Man Updesh Singh Sachdeva, Sreejesh Sreedharanunni, Rajender Kumar, Pankaj Malhotra, Baljinder Singh","doi":"10.1097/RLU.0000000000005731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT targets CXCR4 receptors and provides superior diagnostic accuracy in multiple myeloma (MM) compared with 18 F-FDG PET/CT. However, its role in response evaluation remains unexplored. We propose a 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT-based response evaluation criterion and evaluate its utility compared with International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and 18 F-FDG PET/CT-based response.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In this prospective single-center study, 40 treatment-naive myeloma patients were recruited between February 2021 and April 2023. Both 68 Ga-Pentixafor and 18 F-FDG PET/CT were performed at baseline and at follow-up (7.2 mo-median). Response to treatment was evaluated using the proposed 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT criteria and compared with responses assessed by IMWG and 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 40 newly diagnosed MM patients [median age: 56.5 years (IQR 45.25 to 63.75); 24 men], 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT was positive in a greater proportion of patients than 18 F-FDG PET/CT [90% (36/40) vs. 67.5% (27/40); P =0.02] thus, adequately evaluated response in additional 27.5% (11/40) of cases. Using the proposed criteria for 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT, significant differences in PFS were observed across response categories [complete response (CR)-not reached, partial response (PR)-26.2 mo, progressive disease (PD)-15.3 mo; P =0.001]. Among patients achieving ≥very good partial response (VGPR) as per IMWG, those with positive 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT had shorter PFS compared with those with negative findings (median PFS: 34.2 mo vs. not reached; P =0.056), whereas no significant difference was noted with 18 F-FDG PET/CT ( P =0.68). In addition, on follow-up of patients with negative 18 F-FDG at the response, those with discordant 68 Ga-Pentixafor findings had significantly shorter PFS (17.73 mo vs. not reached; P =0.010) compared with those with concordant negative findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT offers a more accurate assessment of treatment response and prognosis in MM patients, adding valuable information beyond the IMWG and 18 F-FDG PET/CT-based criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":10692,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nuclear Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e331-e339"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000005731","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT targets CXCR4 receptors and provides superior diagnostic accuracy in multiple myeloma (MM) compared with 18 F-FDG PET/CT. However, its role in response evaluation remains unexplored. We propose a 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT-based response evaluation criterion and evaluate its utility compared with International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and 18 F-FDG PET/CT-based response.

Patients and methods: In this prospective single-center study, 40 treatment-naive myeloma patients were recruited between February 2021 and April 2023. Both 68 Ga-Pentixafor and 18 F-FDG PET/CT were performed at baseline and at follow-up (7.2 mo-median). Response to treatment was evaluated using the proposed 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT criteria and compared with responses assessed by IMWG and 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

Results: Among the 40 newly diagnosed MM patients [median age: 56.5 years (IQR 45.25 to 63.75); 24 men], 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT was positive in a greater proportion of patients than 18 F-FDG PET/CT [90% (36/40) vs. 67.5% (27/40); P =0.02] thus, adequately evaluated response in additional 27.5% (11/40) of cases. Using the proposed criteria for 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT, significant differences in PFS were observed across response categories [complete response (CR)-not reached, partial response (PR)-26.2 mo, progressive disease (PD)-15.3 mo; P =0.001]. Among patients achieving ≥very good partial response (VGPR) as per IMWG, those with positive 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT had shorter PFS compared with those with negative findings (median PFS: 34.2 mo vs. not reached; P =0.056), whereas no significant difference was noted with 18 F-FDG PET/CT ( P =0.68). In addition, on follow-up of patients with negative 18 F-FDG at the response, those with discordant 68 Ga-Pentixafor findings had significantly shorter PFS (17.73 mo vs. not reached; P =0.010) compared with those with concordant negative findings.

Conclusions: 68 Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT offers a more accurate assessment of treatment response and prognosis in MM patients, adding valuable information beyond the IMWG and 18 F-FDG PET/CT-based criteria.

68ga - pentxapet / ct应答评价及其在多发性骨髓瘤中的预后价值:与IMWG和18f - fdg应答的比较
目的:68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT靶向CXCR4受体,与18F-FDG PET/CT相比,对多发性骨髓瘤(MM)的诊断准确性更高。然而,其在反应评价中的作用仍未得到探索。我们提出了一个68Ga-Pentixafor PET/ ct反应评价标准,并将其与国际骨髓瘤工作组(IMWG)标准和18F-FDG PET/ ct反应评价标准进行了比较。患者和方法:在这项前瞻性单中心研究中,在2021年2月至2023年4月期间招募了40名未接受治疗的骨髓瘤患者。68Ga-Pentixafor和18F-FDG PET/CT均在基线和随访时进行(中位数为7.2 mo)。采用拟议的68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT标准评估治疗反应,并与IMWG和18F-FDG PET/CT评估的反应进行比较。采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线对无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)进行分析和比较。结果:40例新诊断MM患者[中位年龄:56.5岁(IQR 45.25 ~ 63.75);68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT阳性比例高于18F-FDG PET/CT阳性比例[90%(36/40)比67.5% (27/40);P=0.02]因此,对另外27.5%(11/40)病例的反应进行了充分评估。使用68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT的拟议标准,观察到不同反应类别的PFS有显著差异[完全缓解(CR)-未达到,部分缓解(PR)-26.2个月,进展性疾病(PD)-15.3个月;P = 0.001)。在根据IMWG达到≥非常好部分缓解(VGPR)的患者中,PET/CT 68ga - pentixa阳性患者的PFS较阴性患者短(中位PFS: 34.2个月vs.未达到;P=0.056),而18F-FDG PET/CT无显著差异(P=0.68)。此外,在对18F-FDG阴性患者的随访中,68Ga-Pentixafor结果不一致的患者的PFS显著缩短(17.73个月vs.未达到;P=0.010)。结论:68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT可以更准确地评估MM患者的治疗反应和预后,在IMWG和18F-FDG PET/CT标准之外增加了有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Nuclear Medicine
Clinical Nuclear Medicine 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
31.10%
发文量
1113
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Nuclear Medicine is a comprehensive and current resource for professionals in the field of nuclear medicine. It caters to both generalists and specialists, offering valuable insights on how to effectively apply nuclear medicine techniques in various clinical scenarios. With a focus on timely dissemination of information, this journal covers the latest developments that impact all aspects of the specialty. Geared towards practitioners, Clinical Nuclear Medicine is the ultimate practice-oriented publication in the field of nuclear imaging. Its informative articles are complemented by numerous illustrations that demonstrate how physicians can seamlessly integrate the knowledge gained into their everyday practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信