Predictive value and accuracy of [F]FDG PET/CT modified response criteria for checkpoint immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in metastatic melanoma and dramatically alter the treatment of these patients. Given the high cost and potential toxicity, a reliable method for evaluating treatment response is needed. In this study, we assessed tumor response in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICIs using three modified response criteria: PET Response Evaluation Criteria for Immunotherapy (PERCIMT), PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors for up to Five Lesions (PERCIST5), and immunotherapy-modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors for up to Five Lesions (imPERCIST5).

METHODS

Ninety-one patients with non-resectable stage IV metastatic melanoma who received ICIs were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Each patient had two [F]FDG PET/CT scans performed before and after ICI therapy. Responses at the follow-up scan were evaluated according to PERCIMT, PERCIST5, and imPERCIST5 criteria. Patients were classified into four groups: complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response (PMR), progressive metabolic disease (PMD), and stable metabolic disease (SMD). To assess the "disease control rate," two groups have been defined based on each criterion: patients with CMR, PMR, and SMD as "disease-controlled group (i.e., responders)" and PMD as the "uncontrolled-disease group (i.e., non-responders)". The correspondence between metabolic tumor response defined by these criteria and clinical outcome was assessed and compared.

RESULTS

The response and the disease control rates were 40.7% and 71.4%, 41.8% and 50.5%, and 54.9% and 74.7% based on the PERCIMT, PERCIST5, and imPERCIST5 criteria, respectively. PERCIMT and imPERCIST5 showed significantly different disease control rates from that of PERCIST5 (P < 0.001), whereas it was not significant between PERCIMT and imPERCIST5. Overall survival was significantly longer in the metabolic responder groups than in the non-responder groups based on PERCIMT and PERCIST5 criteria (PERCIMT: 2.48 versus 1.47 years, P = 0.003; PERCIST5: 2.57 versus 1.81 years. P = 0.017). However, according to imPERCIST5 criterion, this difference was not observed (P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Although the appearance of new lesions can be secondary to an inflammatory response to ICIs and indicative of pseudoprogression, given the higher rate of true progression, the appearance of new lesions should be interpreted deliberately. Of the three assessed modified criteria, PERCIMT appear to provide more reliable metabolic response assessment that correlates strongly with overall patient survival.