Differences in Failure-Free Survival After Salvage Radiotherapy Guided by Conventional Imaging Versus 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in Postprostatectomy Patients: A Post Hoc Substratification Analysis of the EMPIRE-1 Trial.

The EMPIRE-1 (Emory Molecular Prostate Imaging for Radiotherapy Enhancement 1) trial reported a survival advantage in recurrent prostate cancer salvage radiotherapy (SRT) guided by 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT versus conventional imaging. We performed a post hoc analysis of the EMPIRE-1 cohort stratified by protocol-specified criteria, comparing failure-free survival (FFS) between study arms. Methods: EMPIRE-1 randomized patients to SRT planning via either conventional imaging only (bone scanning plus abdominopelvic CT or MRI) (arm A) or conventional imaging plus 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT (arm B). Randomization was stratified by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (<2.0 vs. ≥ 2.0 ng/mL), adverse pathology, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) intent. We subdivided patients in each arm using the randomization stratification criteria and compared FFS between patient subgroups across study arms. Results: Eighty-one and 76 patients received per-protocol SRT in study arms A and B, respectively. The median follow-up was 3.5 y (95% CI, 3.0-4.0). FFS was 63.0% and 51.2% at 36 and 48 mo, respectively, in arm A and 75.5% at both 36 and 48 mo in arm B. Among patients with a PSA of less than 2 ng/mL (mean, 0.42 ± 0.42 ng/mL), significantly higher FFS was seen in arm B than arm A at 36 mo (83.2% [95% CI, 70.0-91.0] vs. 66.5% [95% CI, 51.6-77.8], P < 0.001) and 48 mo (83.2% [95% CI, 70.0-91.0] vs. 56.2% [95% CI, 40.5-69.2], P < 0.001). No significant difference in FFS between study arms in patients with a PSA of at least 2 ng/mL was observed. Among patients with adverse pathology, significantly higher FFS was seen in arm B than arm A at 48 mo (68.9% [95% CI, 52.1-80.8] vs. 42.8% [95% CI, 26.2-58.3], P < 0.001) though not at the 36-mo follow-up. FFS was higher in patients without adverse pathology in arm B versus arm A (90.2% [95% CI, 65.9-97.5] vs. 73.1% [95% CI, 42.9-89.0], P = 0.006) at both 36 and 48 mo. Patients in whom ADT was intended in arm B had higher FFS than those in arm A, with the difference reaching statistical significance at 48 mo (65.2% [95% CI, 40.3-81.7] vs. 29.1 [95% CI, 6.5-57.2], P < 0.001). Patients without ADT intent in arm B had significantly higher FFS than patients in arm A at 36 mo (80.7% [95% CI, 64.9-90.0] vs. 68.0% [95% CI, 51.1-80.2]) and 48 mo (80.7% [95% CI, 64.9-90.0] vs. 58.6% [95% CI, 41.0-72.6]). Conclusion: The survival advantage due to the addition of 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT to SRT planning is maintained regardless of the presence of adverse pathology or ADT intent. Including 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT to SRT leads to survival benefits in patients with a PSA of less than 2 ng/mL but not in patients with a PSA of 2 ng/mL or higher.

Imaging of Cancer Immunotherapy: Response Assessment Methods, Atypical Response Patterns, and Immune-Related Adverse Events, From the AJR Special Series on Imaging of Inflammation.

The introduction of immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized cancer treatment paradigms. Since FDA approval of the first ICI in 2011, multiple additional ICIs have been approved and granted marketing authorization, and many promising agents are in early clinical adoption. Due to the distinctive biologic mechanisms of ICIs, the patterns of tumor response and progression seen with immunotherapy differ from those observed with cytotoxic chemothera-pies. With increasing clinical adoption of immunotherapy, it is critical for radiologists to recognize different response patterns and common pitfalls to avoid misinterpretation of imaging studies or prompt premature cessation of potentially effective treatment. This review provides an overview of ICIs and their mechanisms of action and discusses anatomic and metabolic immune-related response assessment methods, typical and atypical patterns of immunotherapy response (including pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, dissociated response, and durable response), and common imaging features of immune-related adverse events. Future multicenter trials are needed to validate the proposed immune-related response criteria and identify the functional imaging markers of early treatment response and survival.

18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to establish the diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients. The performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT was compared with other imaging techniques in the same cohort of patients. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed/Medline and EMBASE (last Updated, September 28, 2018). Studies with histopathology confirmation and/or clinical/imaging follow-up as reference standard were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included. Twelve studies including 507 patients provided per-patient basis information. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases were 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.93), 123.2 and 0.97, respectively. Seven studies provided the lesion-based accuracy information of 1812 lesions identified on 18F-NaF-PET/CT with the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.98), 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87), 206.8 and 0.97, respectively. The overall diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT is superior to 99mTc-bone scintigraphy (AUC 0.842; P < 0.001; four studies) and 99mTc-SPECT (AUC 0.896; P < 0.001, four studies). Compared to 18F NaF-PET/CT, whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was shown to have lower sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI 0.68-0.93), with no significant difference in the overall performance (AUC 0.947; P = 0.18, four studies). CONCLUSION: 18F-NaF-PET/CT has excellent diagnostic performance in the detection of bone metastases in staging and restaging of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT is superior to 99mTc bone scintigraphy and SPECT, and comparable to DWI-MRI.

Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Suspected Paraneoplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy.

The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of whole-body 18F-FDG PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of underlying malignancy in patients with clinically suspected neurologic and nonneurologic paraneoplastic syndromes. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Scopus (last updated November 2016) to identify relevant published studies reporting the performance of 18F-FDG PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected paraneoplastic syndrome. Histopathologic confirmation or clinical follow-up was considered as the reference standard. Pooled estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. A summary receiver-operating-characteristic curve was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was determined along with the Q* index. Results: Twenty-one studies including a total of 1,293 individual patients suspected of having a paraneoplastic syndrome and who underwent 18F-FDG PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations met our inclusion criteria. There was moderate to high heterogeneity among the included studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of 18F-FDG PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of underlying malignancy were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.86-0.90), and 34.03 (95% CI, 18.76-61.72), respectively. The AUC and the Q* index were 0.916 (SE, 0.018) and 0.849, indicating excellent diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic accuracy was slightly improved after studies with high applicability concerns were excluded (AUC, 0.931; SE, 0.020). In a subgroup analysis, 18F-FDG PET/CT was found to have a significantly higher specificity (0.89 vs. 0.79) than 18F-FDG PET alone, with no evidence of significant difference in the overall performance (AUC, 0.930 vs. 0.891; 2-tailed P value for difference, 0.31). Conclusion: This meta-analysis of available studies demonstrates that whole-body 18F-FDG PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT has high diagnostic accuracy and moderate to high sensitivity and specificity for detection of underlying malignancy in patients suspected of having a paraneoplastic syndrome.