Background
Historically, patient selection for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has been performed by virtue of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS). In recent years, somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (SSTR-PET) has gradually replaced SRS because of its improved diagnostic capacity, creating an unmet need for SSTR-PET-based selection criteria for PRRT. Tumor-to-blood ratio (TBR) measurements have shown high correlation with the net influx rate Ki, reflecting the tumor somatostatin receptor expression, to a higher degree than standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements. TBR may therefore predict treatment response to PRRT. In addition, changes in semiquantitative SSTR-PET parameters have been shown to predate morphological changes, making them a suitable metric for response assessment.
Conclusions
Baseline TBR as well as changes in TBR were significantly associated with PFS and OS and may improve patient selection and morphological response assessment. Future trials need to assess the role of TBR for therapy monitoring also during PRRT and prospectively explore TBR as a predictive marker for patient selection.
Methods
The institutional database of the Department of Nuclear Medicine (University Hospital Essen) was searched for NET patients undergoing ≥ 2 PRRT cycles with available baseline and follow-up SSTR-PET. Two blinded independent readers reported the occurrence of new lesions quantified tumor uptake of up to nine lesions per patient using SUV and TBR. The association between baseline TBR and changes in uptake/occurrence of new lesions with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was tested by use of a Cox regression model and log-rank test.
Results
Patients with baseline TBR in the 1st quartile had a shorter PFS (14.4 months) than those in the 3rd (23.7 months; p = 0.03) and 4th (24.1 months; p = 0.02) quartile. Similarly, these patients had significantly shorter OS (32.5 months) than those with baseline TBR in the 2nd (41.8 months; p = 0.03), 3rd (69.2 months; p < 0.01), and 4th (42.7 months; p = 0.03) quartile. Baseline to follow-up increases in TBR were independently associated with shorter PFS when accounting for prognostic markers, e.g., RECIST response (hazard ratio = 2.91 [95%CI = 1.54-5.50]; p = 0.01). This was confirmed with regard to OS (hazard ratio = 1.64 [95%CI = 1.03-2.62]; p = 0.04). Changes in SUVmean were not associated with PFS or OS. Conclusions: Baseline TBR as well as changes in TBR were significantly associated with PFS and OS and may improve patient selection and morphological response assessment. Future trials need to assess the role of TBR for therapy monitoring also during PRRT and prospectively explore TBR as a predictive marker for patient selection.