A phase 1b study evaluating the effect of elacestrant treatment on estrogen receptor availability and estradiol binding to the estrogen receptor in metastatic breast cancer lesions using 18F-FES PET/CT imaging.

BACKGROUND: Elacestrant is an oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader. This phase 1b open-label, non-randomized study (RAD1901-106) was initiated to determine the effect of elacestrant on the availability of ER in lesions from postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) using 16α-18F-fluoro-17ß-estradiol positron emission tomography with low-dose computed tomography (FES-PET/CT). METHODS: Eligible patients were postmenopausal women with ER+, HER2- ABC; tumor progression after ≥ 6 months of 1-3 lines of endocrine treatment for ABC; and measurable or evaluable disease. Two 8-patient cohorts were enrolled: one treated with 400 mg elacestrant once daily (QD) and one treated with 200 mg elacestrant QD with dose escalation to 400 mg QD after 14 days. Elacestrant was dosed continuously until progressive disease, toxicity, or withdrawal. FES-PET/CT was performed pre-dose at baseline and 4 h post-dose on day 14. The primary endpoint was the percentage difference in FES uptake in tumor lesions (maximum 20) after 14 days of treatment compared to baseline. Overall response was investigator-assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1. RESULTS: Patients (n = 16; median age, 53.5 years) had ABC with a median 2.5 prior lines of endocrine therapy. Median reduction in tumor FES uptake from baseline to day 14 was 89.1% (Q1, Q3: 75.1%, 94.1%) and was similar in both cohorts (89.1% [Q1, Q3: 67.4%, 94.2%], 200/400 mg and 88.7% [Q1, Q3: 79.5%, 94.1%], 400 mg). Residual ER availability (> 25% persistence in FES uptake) on day 14 was observed in 3 patients receiving 200/400 mg (3/78, 37.5%) and 1 patient receiving 400 mg (1/8, 12.5%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 11.1% (1 partial response), and clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 30.8%. Median percentage change in FES uptake did not correlate with ORR or CBR. Adverse events occurring in > 20% of the patients were nausea (68.8%), fatigue (50.0%), dyspepsia (43.8%), vomiting (37.5%), and decreased appetite, dysphagia, and hot flush (31.3% each). Most events were grade 2 in severity. CONCLUSION: Elacestrant 200 mg and 400 mg QD greatly reduced ER availability measured by FES-PET/CT. In a heavily pretreated population, elacestrant was associated with antitumor activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02650817 . Registered on 08 January 2016.

Visual and quantitative evaluation of [18F]FES and [18F]FDHT PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an interobserver variability study.

PURPOSE: Correct identification of tumour receptor status is important for treatment decisions in breast cancer. [18F]FES PET and [18F]FDHT PET allow non-invasive assessment of the oestrogen (ER) and androgen receptor (AR) status of individual lesions within a patient. Despite standardised analysis techniques, interobserver variability can significantly affect the interpretation of PET results and thus clinical applicability. The purpose of this study was to determine visual and quantitative interobserver variability of [18F]FES PET and [18F]FDHT PET interpretation in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, two-centre study, patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer underwent both [18F]FES and [18F]FDHT PET/CT. In total, 120 lesions were identified in 10 patients with either conventional imaging (bone scan or lesions > 1 cm on high-resolution CT, n = 69) or only with [18F]FES and [18F]FDHT PET (n = 51). All lesions were scored visually and quantitatively by two independent observers. A visually PET-positive lesion was defined as uptake above background. For quantification, we used standardised uptake values (SUV): SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean. RESULTS: Visual analysis showed an absolute positive and negative interobserver agreement for [18F]FES PET of 84% and 83%, respectively (kappa = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.87), and 49% and 74% for [18F]FDHT PET, respectively (kappa = 0.23, 95% CI - 0.04-0.49). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for quantification of SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.98), 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for [18F]FES, and 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.85), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.84) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.84) for [18F]FDHT, respectively. CONCLUSION: Visual and quantitative evaluation of [18F]FES PET showed high interobserver agreement. These results support the use of [18F]FES PET in clinical practice. In contrast, visual agreement for [18F]FDHT PET was relatively low due to low tumour-background ratios, but quantitative agreement was good. This underscores the relevance of quantitative analysis of [18F]FDHT PET in breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01988324. Registered 20 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01988324?term=FDHT+PET&draw=1&rank=2.

Noise-Induced Variability of Immuno-PET with Zirconium-89-Labeled Antibodies: an Analysis Based on Count-Reduced Clinical Images.

PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) with Zirconium-89 (Zr-89)-labeled antibodies can be used for in vivo quantification of antibody uptake. Knowledge about measurement variability is required to ensure correct interpretation. However, no clinical studies have been reported on measurement variability of Zr-89 immuno-PET. As variability due to low signal-to-noise is part of the total measurement variability, the aim of this study was to assess noise-induced variability of Zr-89 -immuno-PET using count-reduced clinical images. PROCEDURES: Data were acquired from three previously reported clinical studies with [89Zr]antiCD20 (74 MBq, n = 7), [89Zr]antiEGFR (37 MBq, n = 7), and [89Zr]antiCD44 (37 MBq, n = 13), with imaging obtained 1 to 6 days post injection (D0-D6). Volumes of interest (VOIs) were manually delineated for liver, spleen, kidney, lung, brain, and tumor. For blood pool and bone marrow, fixed-size VOIs were used. Original PET list mode data were split and reconstructed, resulting in two count-reduced images at 50 % of the original injected dose (e.g., 37 MBq74inj). Repeatability coefficients (RC) were obtained from Bland-Altman analysis on standardized uptake values (SUV) derived from VOIs applied to these images. RESULTS: The RC for the combined manually delineated organs for [89Zr] antiCD20 (37 MBq74inj) increased from D0 to D6 and was less than 6 % at all time points. Blood pool and bone marrow had higher RC, up to 43 % for 37 MBq74inj at D6. For tumor, the RC was up to 42 % for [89Zr]antiCD20 (37 MBq74inj). For [89Zr]antiCD20, (18 MBq74inj), [89Zr]antiEGFR (18 MBq37inj), and [89Zr]antiCD44 (18 MBq37inj), measurement variability was independent of the investigated antibody. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, noise-induced variability results in a RC for Zr-89-immuno-PET (37 MBq) around 6 % for manually delineated organs combined, increasing up to 43 % at D6 for blood pool and bone marrow, assuming similar biodistribution of antibodies. The signal-to-noise ratio leads to tumor RC up to 42 %.