European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
[68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT for staging and prognostic assessment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: comparison to [18F]FDG PET/CT.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Zhenying, Yang Apeng, Chen Aihong, Dong Jinfeng, Lin Junfang, Huang Chao, Zhang Jiaying, Liu Huimin, Zeng Zhiyong, Miao Weibing
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic performance of [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT at baseline for staging of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and to compare it with [18F]FDG PET/CT and the Revised-International Staging System (R-ISS).
METHODS: Patients who underwent [68Ga]Pentixafor and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging were retrospectively included. Patient staging was performed according to the Durie-Salmon PLUS staging system based on [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT images, and the R-ISS. Progression-free survival (PFS) at patient follow-up was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared using the log-rank test. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to assess predictive performance.
RESULTS: Fifty-five MM patients were evaluated. Compared with [18F]FDG PET, [68Ga]Pentixafor PET detected 25 patients as the same stage, while 26 patients were upstaged and 4 patients were downstaged (P = 0.001). After considering the low-dose CT data, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients classified in each stage using [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.091). [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT-based staging discriminated PFS outcomes in patients with different disease stages (stage I vs. stage II, stage I vs. stage III, and stage II vs. stage III; all P < 0.05), whereas for [18F]FDG PET/CT, there was only a difference in median PFS between stage I and III (P = 0.021). When staged by R-ISS, the median PFS for stage III was significantly lower than that for stage I and II (P = 0.008 and 0.035, respectively). When predicting 2-year PFS based on staging, the AUC of [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT was significantly higher than that of [68Ga]Pentixafor PET (0.923 vs. 0.821, P = 0.002), [18F]FDG PET (0.923 vs. 0.752 P = 0.002), and R-ISS (0.923 vs. 0.776, P = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT-based staging possesses substantial potential to predict disease progression in newly diagnosed MM patients.
METHODS: Patients who underwent [68Ga]Pentixafor and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging were retrospectively included. Patient staging was performed according to the Durie-Salmon PLUS staging system based on [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT images, and the R-ISS. Progression-free survival (PFS) at patient follow-up was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared using the log-rank test. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to assess predictive performance.
RESULTS: Fifty-five MM patients were evaluated. Compared with [18F]FDG PET, [68Ga]Pentixafor PET detected 25 patients as the same stage, while 26 patients were upstaged and 4 patients were downstaged (P = 0.001). After considering the low-dose CT data, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients classified in each stage using [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.091). [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT-based staging discriminated PFS outcomes in patients with different disease stages (stage I vs. stage II, stage I vs. stage III, and stage II vs. stage III; all P < 0.05), whereas for [18F]FDG PET/CT, there was only a difference in median PFS between stage I and III (P = 0.021). When staged by R-ISS, the median PFS for stage III was significantly lower than that for stage I and II (P = 0.008 and 0.035, respectively). When predicting 2-year PFS based on staging, the AUC of [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT was significantly higher than that of [68Ga]Pentixafor PET (0.923 vs. 0.821, P = 0.002), [18F]FDG PET (0.923 vs. 0.752 P = 0.002), and R-ISS (0.923 vs. 0.776, P = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT-based staging possesses substantial potential to predict disease progression in newly diagnosed MM patients.