Purpose: Assessing clinical activity of molecularly targeted anticancer agents, especially in the absence of tumor shrinkage, is challenging. To evaluate on-treatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and/or 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) for this purpose, we conducted a prospective multicenter trial assessing PET response rates and associations with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 2nd/3rd-line non–small-cell lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib.

Experimental Design: PET/computed tomography (CT) scans were conducted at baseline, day (d)14 and d56 after the first daily erlotinib dose, with diagnostic CT at baseline and d56 (all scans centrally reviewed). PET partial metabolic response (PMR) was defined as a mean decrease (in ≤5 lesions/patient) of 15% or more maximum standardized uptake value. PFS was investigator-determined.

Results: Of 74 erlotinib-treated patients, 51 completed all imaging assessments through d56; 13 of 51 (26%) FDG-evaluable patients had PMR at d14, as did 9 of 50 (18%) FLT-evaluable patients. Four (7.8%) showed partial responses (PR) by d56 CT; all 4 had PMR by d14 FDG-PET with 3 PMRs by d14 FLT-PET. Three of the 4 patients with CT PR had evaluable archival tumor tissue; all 3 had epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. D14 and d56 PMRs by FDG or FLT were associated with improved PFS; HRs for PET responders versus nonresponders were 0.3 to 0.4. D14 FDG-PET PMR was associated with improved OS (P = 0.03) compared with FDG-PET nonresponders.

Conclusion: Early (d14) FDG-PET PMR is associated with improved PFS and OS, even in the absence of subsequent Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response. These data support inclusion of FDG-PET imaging in clinical trials testing novel targeted therapies, particularly those with anticipated cytostatic effects. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3304–15. ©2011 AACR.

Translational Relevance

Many cancer therapies in development may benefit patients through prolonged stable disease rather than tumor shrinkage. Hence, standard size–based response assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) likely underestimates therapeutic activity. To evaluate whether 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) or 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) could address this limitation, we conducted a multicenter clinical study of these technologies by an established therapy: erlotinib in non–small-cell lung cancer.

We show that (i) using these technologies in a multicenter study is feasible; (ii) PET identifies a greater number of responders (including patients with epidermal growth factor receptor wild-type tumors) than RECIST; (iii) PET response is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival; and (iv) FDG-PET seems more informative than FLT-PET in this setting. These results strongly support the use of appropriate PET imaging as a clinical tool to evaluate investigational cancer therapies, and also to facilitate development of companion diagnostics by enabling identification of tumor characteristics in responder subpopulations.

In cancer therapeutics, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; ref. 1), based primarily on computed tomography (CT) scans, are widely used for response assessment, but are known to have a number of critical limitations. This is of particular concern in the clinical development of molecularly targeted therapies (2) that are expected to induce prolonged stable disease via cytostasis rather than objective morphological response (3). In lung cancer, use of RECIST is further confounded by frequent structural abnormalities, before and after treatment, which may not actually contain tumor (4).

A number of technologies, including CT volumetrics (5) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, offer the possibility of addressing these limitations. In particular, PET imaging with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG; ref. 6; a measure of glucose metabolism) or 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine (FLT; ref. 7; an indirect measure of cell proliferation) has the potential to provide early and robust assessment of the clinical activity of molecularly targeted therapies by assessing biological changes in tumors that are likely to be of clinical relevance even in the absence of tumor shrinkage.

FDG is widely available for clinical use, is FDA approved, and is increasingly being used in PET imaging for the management of patients with cancer (8, 9). A number of organizations including the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI; ref. 10), the Society of Nuclear Medicine (11), and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (12) have developed guidelines for the use of FDG-PET. In non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), FDG-PET may provide the information at the time of initial staging or restaging, which can assist in therapeutic management decisions (13). In addition, prospective studies of patients with NSCLC showed that FDG-PET response to radiation and various chemotherapies was predictive of survival (14).

FLT-PET has been used in a number of clinical studies (15–19). In NSCLC, it has been shown that PET imaging of FLT uptake correlates with the rate of tumor proliferation as measured by Ki67 tumor staining (16, 17).

For molecularly targeted therapies, several small studies in selected NSCLC patients have evaluated FDG- or FLT-PET changes (20–25). However, for molecularly targeted therapies, it has not yet been established whether these imaging approaches provide a clinically meaningful assessment of therapeutic activity in NSCLC, particularly in the absence of tumor shrinkage. To specifically address this question, we conducted a clinical study of changes on FDG- and FLT-PET early during treatment and subsequent clinical outcomes in NSCLC patients receiving an established molecularly targeted therapy, erlotinib.

Erlotinib (Tarceva) is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Among its clinical uses, erlotinib is an established therapy as a single agent in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who progressed on at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen (26–29). In this clinical setting, the pivotal BR.21 study showed that despite a relatively modest objective CT-RECIST response rate of 8.9%, erlotinib treatment resulted in significant improvement in progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (27). These data suggest that clinical benefit is not limited to patients with CT-RECIST response. Consequently, erlotinib treatment is ideal to assess the clinical performance of FDG- and FLT-PET to identify clinically meaningful activity of a molecularly targeted therapy in the absence of tumor shrinkage.

The phase I/II pilot study described here assessed FDG- and FLT-PET response (on day 14 and day 56) and clinical outcomes (day 56 CT response, PFS and OS). The primary objective was to determine whether patients with FDG- or FLT-PET response on day 56 of erlotinib treatment had longer PFS and OS than patients without PET response. This was assessed by estimating the HRs for PFS and OS between PET responders and PET nonresponders. Secondary objectives included determining the proportion of patients who showed FDG- and FLT-PET response on day 14 and day 56 among all patients, and among those with CT stable disease, and evaluating the safety of FLT. Exploratory objectives included assessment of the relationship between FDG- and FLT-PET response and tumor characteristics, particularly EGFR- and KRAS-related markers (30–36).

Patients

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were in accordance with standard eligibility criteria for erlotinib treatment (26). Eligible patients were 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic, recurrent, or refractory NSCLC after failure of 1 or 2 prior systemic treatment regimens. Patients had a life expectancy 3 months or more; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 to 2; provided archival diagnostic paraffin–embedded tumor tissue; and had adequate key organ function as reflected by standard blood tests. All patients had at least 1 measurable lesion on CT scan that was assessable by FDG- or FLT-PET. Evaluable lesions were defined as measurable by CT (≥ 1.5 cm on spiral CT) and detectable by FDG-PET and/or FLT-PET. For this study, mediastinal lymph nodes between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were acceptable for both CT and PET response evaluation, provided that such lymph nodes did not represent the primary sites of measurable disease. The same lesion did not need to be detectable by both FDG- and FLT-PET imaging because the aim of the study was to evaluate the independent value of these imaging techniques for response assessment.

Exclusion criteria included prior treatment with EGFR-directed therapy; chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or investigational treatment within 14 days or 5 half-lives of systemic therapy; uncontrolled diabetes (fasting serum glucose level > 200 mg/dL); unstable systemic disease; pregnancy; and history of another malignancy in the previous 2 years.

All patients in the study provided written informed consent following approval of the study by the ethics review board at each participating site.

Study design

This was a single-arm, open-label, multicenter, and international study (see schema in Fig. 1). Patients underwent FDG- and FLT-PET scans at separate days at baseline, day 14 and day 56 (± 3 days) of treatment. Patients were followed for disease progression, including CT scans on day 56 and then every 56 days (± 7 days) thereafter, for up to 1 year after administration of the first dose of erlotinib. Patients were followed for survival every 4 months after their discontinuation visit until study closure.

Figure 1.

Study schema.

Study treatment

Patients received erlotinib orally at 150 mg/day. Toxicities resulting from erlotinib administration were managed by symptomatic treatment and/or erlotinib dose interruptions or reductions as appropriate on the basis of the erlotinib prescribing information (26).

The following therapies were excluded during the study: any other anticancer therapies or investigational agents; radiotherapy, unless there were CT-measurable and PET-detectable lesions outside of the radiation field that could be followed for response to erlotinib; and corticosteroids, except for patients entering the study on stable doses ≤25 mg/day of prednisone (or equivalent low doses of other corticosteroids)

Imaging

All PET imaging was conducted with combined PET/CT scanners according to an acquisition protocol stipulated in a detailed imaging charter that was designed to be consistent with the NCI guidelines (10). We previously described the image acquisition requirements and compliance across the clinical sites in Binns and colleagues (37). In brief, patients received an injected dose of FDG on the basis of their weight, benchmarked at 10 mCi for a 70-kg patient and a maximum of 15 mCi. The injected dose of FLT for each patient scan was 7 mCi. Radiotracer uptake times were specified as 75 and 60 minutes ± 15 minutes at baseline for FDG and FLT respectively; on-treatment scans were within 5 minutes of baseline uptake time. A high degree of compliance with the imaging protocol in this study was observed across all time points (37).

PET and CT response assessment

PET and CT responses for all patients were determined at a central reading site (Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia).

PET response assessment was based on the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of up to 5 regions of interest (ROI). SUVmax was measured by utilizing a 3-dimensional cluster in which averaging is done over a sphere with a radius of 1 pixel (a 7 voxel average, corresponding to a diameter of 6–9 mm) and was corrected for lean body mass. Tumor ROIs were identified for each patient on pretreatment scans on the basis of qualitative evaluation. Lesions with an uncorrected SUVmax of greater than 1.5 for FDG and less than 1.0 for FLT were analyzed for response. ROIs for FDG-PET versus FLT-PET did not have to be identical. However, whenever possible, lesions that were suitable for RECIST measurement and analysis with both tracers were selected as target lesions. The SUVmax of each ROI for on-treatment scans was compared with its SUVmax on the corresponding pretreatment scan, and the percent change was determined. If there was more than 1 ROI, a mean SUVmax (mSUVmax) was determined. On the basis of definitions by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), an objective PET response [partial metabolic response (PMR)] was defined as an mSUVmax decrease of 15% or more (6). PET stable metabolic disease (SMD) was defined as a mean change of 0% to 15% in SUVmax, and PET progressive metabolic disease (PMD) was defined as a mean increase of ≥15% or 1 or more new lesions on PET. Recognizing that the optimal definition of PET response is still under investigation, we also applied an exploratory analysis of a ≥25% decrease in mSUVmax threshold to define PET response on day 56; this is consistent with the EORTC recommendations for assessing tumor response after more than 1 cycle of chemotherapy.

CT response was assessed according to modified RECIST criteria (version 1.0); among preidentified CT RECIST target lesions, only those lesions found to be FDG avid were chosen as target lesions.

Safety assessments

Patients were evaluated clinically and with standard laboratory tests at screening and regular intervals during the study. All adverse events (AE) were evaluated for possible relation to FLT, FDG, and erlotinib and graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria for AEs (NCI CTCAE; Version 3.0). FLT was the only investigational agent in this study.

Biomarker assessments

At study entry, archival tumor tissue was collected and subsequently tested for selected molecular markers. EGFR FISH analyses were conducted with a PathVysion(R) Kit (Abbott Molecular). High EGFR copy number was defined as high polysomy (≥4 gene copies in ≥40% of cells) or amplification (≥2 genes/chromosome or ≥15 gene copies in ≥10% of cells; ref. 38). Immunohistochemical analysis of EGFR was conducted by PharmDx kits (DAKO); positive EGFR expression was defined as EGFR staining of ≥10% of tumor cells. Highly sensitive analyses of EGFR somatic gene mutations in exons 18 to 21 and KRAS mutations in exons 2 and 3 were conducted by denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (Transgenomics, Inc.).

Statistical analysis

Patients were considered evaluable for efficacy analysis if they underwent all study-required CT and PET imaging studies through day 56.

To compare PET with CT RECIST responses, the proportion of patients with FDG- and FLT-PET responses (PMR) after the initial 14 and 56 days of erlotinib treatment was estimated and compared with the response rate on day 56 per CT RECIST. PET/CT response rates on day 14 and/or day 56 were also estimated relative to selected tumor characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier survival methodology was used to estimate the median survival time and PFS for patients with or without PET responses for FDG- and FLT-PET on days 14 and 56. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate HRs and 95% CI for PFS and survival in patients with PET response versus patients without PET response for FDG- and FLT-PET on day 14 and day 56. Differences between these groups were assessed by 2-sided log-rank test.

Sensitivity analyses

To assess the robustness of results about the association of PET response and clinical outcome, sensitivity analyses were conducted as follows: (i) exclusion of patients whose PET tracer uptake time violated protocol-defined criteria; (ii) exclusion of patients whose assessments violated protocol-defined window for PET scanning on days 14 and 56, respectively; and (iii) exclusion of patients whose PFS assessments may have been affected by PET scan findings on day 56.

To further test the association of PET response with clinical outcomes, subset analyses were carried out for all patients who completed the day 14 assessments but discontinued before day 56, and for patients with EGFR wild-type tumors.

In addition, a Cox proportional hazards model was applied by using mSUVmax as a continuous measurement to further explore the relationship between mSUVmax and efficacy outcomes.

Furthermore, baseline FDG uptake and an alternate PET response definition of mSUVmax decrease of 25% or more for the assessment of day 56 PET response were analyzed, and their relationship with clinical outcomes was tested.

Study population and patient disposition

The study was conducted at 8 sites in Australia and the United States; 74 patients were enrolled and treated with erlotinib between November 2006 and April 2009. Among these 74 patients, 51 completed all protocol-mandated CT and FDG scans on days 14 and 56 (FDG evaluable patients), and 50 completed CT and FLT scans on days 14 and 56 (FLT evaluable patients). (Two patients completed all FDG scans but not all FLT evaluations; one completed all FLT scans but not all FDG studies.) Sixty-six and 63 patients completed FDG- and FLT-PET scans, respectively, on day 14 and were evaluable for sensitivity analyses. Of 186 lesions selected as target lesions on both RECIST and molecular imaging, 185 were suitable for FDG analysis and 168 for FLT analysis. Due to high adjacent background, 1 lesion was unsuitable for FDG analysis, but could be analyzed on FLT. Of 18 lesions deemed unsuitable for analysis on FLT, 16 had uptake that was too low to be evaluable, whereas 2 lesions could not be demarcated due to high physiological uptake in adjacent tissue (liver and spleen, respectively).

Twenty-one patients discontinued from study prior to completing all d56 study assessments. Reasons for discontinuation included: disease progression (n = 6), death (due to disease progression; n = 5), AEs (n = 4), and others (n = 6).

Baseline and demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Among 51 FDG evaluable patients, the most frequent histology was adenocarcinoma in 37 (72.5%) patients. Archival tumor tissue was obtained from 38 (74.5%) patients, and was evaluable for EGFR IHC, EGFR FISH, EGFR mutation, and KRAS mutation analysis in 38, 33, 35, and 35 patients, respectively. Sensitizing EGFR mutations were present in 4 (11.4%) patients and KRAS mutations were present in 7 (20.0%) patients with evaluable tissue. The majority of FDG- and FLT-PET avid lesions evaluated quantitatively for response were located in the lung (46.9% and 46.6%, respectively), followed by lymph nodes (24.5% and 26.7%), and mediastinum (13.3% and 13.7%). Lesions located in other organs were assessed rather infrequently (<10%) and included bone, abdomen, liver, skin/soft tissue, and spleen. Because only CT RECIST-evaluable PET avid lesions were chosen, the anatomic distribution was similar for CT RECIST target lesions. Information on lesion number, size, and baseline uptake is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics and baseline characteristics

Patients with CT and FDG-PET evaluable lesions
(n = 51)a
Median age (range) 61 (47–78) 
Sex, n (%)  
 Male 30 (58.8) 
 Female 21 (41.2) 
Race, n (%)  
 White 44 (86.3) 
 Asian or Pacific islander 3 (5.9) 
 Black 1 (2.0) 
 Not available 3 (5.9) 
ECOG PS, n (%)  
 0 15 (29.4) 
 1 29 (56.9) 
 2 7 (13.7) 
Smoking history, n (%)  
 Never smoked 5 (9.8) 
 Previously smoked 35 (68.6) 
 Current smoker 11 (21.6) 
Histology  
 Adenocarcinoma 37 (72.5) 
 Squamous carcinoma 8 (15.7) 
 Large-cell carcinoma 1 (2.0) 
 Other (including NOS) 5 (9.8) 
Prior Therapies  
 Radiotherapy 32 (62.7) 
 Surgery 50 (98.0) 
 Systemic 51 (100) 
Time since initial diagnosis, median (range) in months 15.0 (2–98) 
EGFR mutation status, n (%) (n = 35)b 
 Sensitizing mutant 4 (11.4) 
 Wild type 30 (85.7) 
KRAS mutation status, n (%) (n = 35)b 
 Mutated 7 (20.0) 
 Wild type 27 (77.1) 
CT target lesions, median (range)  
 Number 3 (1–5) 
 Size, mm 24 (11–78) 
FDG-PET target ROIs, median (range)  
 Number 3 (1–5) 
 FDG uptake (SUVmax) 5.63 (1.6–31.7)c 
FLT-PET target ROIs, median (range)  
 Number 3 (1 – 5) 
 FLT uptake (SUVmax) 2.5 (1.0–12.2)c 
Patients with CT and FDG-PET evaluable lesions
(n = 51)a
Median age (range) 61 (47–78) 
Sex, n (%)  
 Male 30 (58.8) 
 Female 21 (41.2) 
Race, n (%)  
 White 44 (86.3) 
 Asian or Pacific islander 3 (5.9) 
 Black 1 (2.0) 
 Not available 3 (5.9) 
ECOG PS, n (%)  
 0 15 (29.4) 
 1 29 (56.9) 
 2 7 (13.7) 
Smoking history, n (%)  
 Never smoked 5 (9.8) 
 Previously smoked 35 (68.6) 
 Current smoker 11 (21.6) 
Histology  
 Adenocarcinoma 37 (72.5) 
 Squamous carcinoma 8 (15.7) 
 Large-cell carcinoma 1 (2.0) 
 Other (including NOS) 5 (9.8) 
Prior Therapies  
 Radiotherapy 32 (62.7) 
 Surgery 50 (98.0) 
 Systemic 51 (100) 
Time since initial diagnosis, median (range) in months 15.0 (2–98) 
EGFR mutation status, n (%) (n = 35)b 
 Sensitizing mutant 4 (11.4) 
 Wild type 30 (85.7) 
KRAS mutation status, n (%) (n = 35)b 
 Mutated 7 (20.0) 
 Wild type 27 (77.1) 
CT target lesions, median (range)  
 Number 3 (1–5) 
 Size, mm 24 (11–78) 
FDG-PET target ROIs, median (range)  
 Number 3 (1–5) 
 FDG uptake (SUVmax) 5.63 (1.6–31.7)c 
FLT-PET target ROIs, median (range)  
 Number 3 (1 – 5) 
 FLT uptake (SUVmax) 2.5 (1.0–12.2)c 

Abbreviations: IHC, immunohistochemistry; NOS, not otherwise specified

aTwo patients received FDG without FLT and one received FLT without FDG. Hence, the total number of patients with or without FLT scans is 50.

bThirty-five patients had available tissue. However, for 1 patient, tissue was deemed unevaluable for KRAS mutation status.

cMedian SUVmax values reflect values corrected for lean body mass in each patient, whereas the range for individual lesions reflects the raw SUVmax value on the basis of the mean value obtained from clustering of the most intense voxel and the 6 voxels surrounding it. The median uncorrected SUVmax for lean body mass was 8.8 for FDG-PET and 4.2 for FLT-PET.

Correlation of CT and PET responses

CT responses on day 56 per RECIST 1.0 and PET PMR on days 14 and 56 are shown in Table 2. Of 51 FDG evaluable patients who received daily oral erlotinib and completed all assessments through day 56, 4 (7.8%) patients had a partial response (PR) by day 56 CT evaluation.

Table 2.

CT and PET assessments of response rates, OS, and PFS

CT (n = 51)aFDG-PET (n = 50)a,bCT (n = 51)cFLT-PET (n = 50)b,c
Day 14Day 56Day 14Day 56
PR, n (%) 4 (8) 13 (26) 8 (16) 4 (50) 9 (18) 8 (16) 
SD, n (%) 26 (51) 17 (33) 12 (23) 26 (52) 26 (52) 16 (32) 
PD, n (%) 21 (41) 21 (41) 31 (61) 20 (40) 15 (30) 26 (52) 
       
PFS HR for 0.29 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.41 0.38 
respondersd       
P value, 95% CI <0.001 (0.13, 0.6) 0.01 (0.14, 0.77) 0.02 (0.18, 0.93) 0.02 (0.16, 0.91) 
OS HR for 0.32 0.44 0.49 0.32 0.87 0.80 
respondersd       
P value, 95% CI 0.11 (0.08, 1.32) 0.03 (0.21, 0.94) 0.13 (0.19, 1.25) 0.11 (0.08, 1.32) 0.74 (0.38, 1.97) 0.62 (0.34, 1.92) 
CT (n = 51)aFDG-PET (n = 50)a,bCT (n = 51)cFLT-PET (n = 50)b,c
Day 14Day 56Day 14Day 56
PR, n (%) 4 (8) 13 (26) 8 (16) 4 (50) 9 (18) 8 (16) 
SD, n (%) 26 (51) 17 (33) 12 (23) 26 (52) 26 (52) 16 (32) 
PD, n (%) 21 (41) 21 (41) 31 (61) 20 (40) 15 (30) 26 (52) 
       
PFS HR for 0.29 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.41 0.38 
respondersd       
P value, 95% CI <0.001 (0.13, 0.6) 0.01 (0.14, 0.77) 0.02 (0.18, 0.93) 0.02 (0.16, 0.91) 
OS HR for 0.32 0.44 0.49 0.32 0.87 0.80 
respondersd       
P value, 95% CI 0.11 (0.08, 1.32) 0.03 (0.21, 0.94) 0.13 (0.19, 1.25) 0.11 (0.08, 1.32) 0.74 (0.38, 1.97) 0.62 (0.34, 1.92) 

an refers to the number of patients with available FDG-PET and CT data.

bPET response defined as mean decrease of 15% or more in SUVmax across all ROIs.

cn refers to the number of patients with available FLT-PET and CT data.

dHR for responders compared with nonresponders.

Eight patients had a PMR on day 56 by FDG- and FLT- PET scan. All 4 patients with CT-PR on day 56 also had a PMR on day 56 on FDG-PET, whereas 2 had a PMR on day 56 on FLT-PET.

The early PMR rates by FDG- and FLT-PET on day 14 were higher than the day 56 rates. Of 51 FDG evaluable patients, 13 (26%) had a PMR on day 14, and of 50 FLT evaluable patients, 9 (18%) had a PMR on day 14. All 4 patients with a CT-PR on day 56 also had a PMR on day 14 on FDG-PET, whereas 3 had a PMR on day 14 FLT-PET.

Waterfall plots of mSUVmax for days 14 and 56 FDG- and FLT-PET are shown in Figure 2A and Supplementary Appendix Figure 1A, respectively, ordered by CT response (PR, SD, and PD) and relative change in mSUVmax. FDG-PET PMR, SMD, and PMD are indicated, as are CT RECIST response parameters (left to right). Of note is the heterogeneity of FDG-PET changes among patients with stable disease on day 56 CT. On day 14: 7 PMR, 12 SMD, and 7 PMD, and on day 56: 4 PMR, 11 SMD, and 11 PMD.

Figure 2.

FDG-PET responses on day 14 and day 56, and PFS and OS. A, waterfall plot of FDG-PET responses on days 14 and 56 ordered by day 56 CT responses. FDG-PET PMR, SMD, and PMD are color-coded within the bar graphs, and CT responses are color-coded underneath. B, PFS and OS in FDG-PET responders versus nonresponders. (FLT-PET showed a similar trend, but there were fewer FLT-PET responders). C, waterfall plot of day 14 FDG-PET changes, ordered by FDG-PET response, and corresponding patient demographics and tumor characteristics. For the “race” category, “other” refers to black (1 patient), Native Hawaiian or Pacific islander (1 patient), or “not available” (2 patients). For EGFR, sensitizing mutations are shown as positive. In addition, 1 patient (3rd from right) had an EGFR mutation in exon 20 (which has been previously associated with resistance to EGFR TKIs).

Figure 2.

FDG-PET responses on day 14 and day 56, and PFS and OS. A, waterfall plot of FDG-PET responses on days 14 and 56 ordered by day 56 CT responses. FDG-PET PMR, SMD, and PMD are color-coded within the bar graphs, and CT responses are color-coded underneath. B, PFS and OS in FDG-PET responders versus nonresponders. (FLT-PET showed a similar trend, but there were fewer FLT-PET responders). C, waterfall plot of day 14 FDG-PET changes, ordered by FDG-PET response, and corresponding patient demographics and tumor characteristics. For the “race” category, “other” refers to black (1 patient), Native Hawaiian or Pacific islander (1 patient), or “not available” (2 patients). For EGFR, sensitizing mutations are shown as positive. In addition, 1 patient (3rd from right) had an EGFR mutation in exon 20 (which has been previously associated with resistance to EGFR TKIs).

Close modal

Limiting the analysis to the 167 target lesions that were positive on both FDG and FLT at baseline had no impact on the number of responders.

Association of PET response with PFS and OS

Both days 14 and 56 PMR by either FDG or FLT were positively associated with clinical outcomes. There was a significant association between FDG- and FLT-PET response and improved PFS at both days 14 and 56 (Table 2, Fig. 2B and Supplementary Appendix Fig. 1B).

However, day 14 FDG-PET PMR was the only measurement significantly associated with improved OS: HR 0.44 [P = 0.03; 95% CI = (0.21, 0.94)] compared with nonresponders.

FDG-PET responses and corresponding patient and tumor characteristics

Figure 2C shows a waterfall plot of observed changes in FDG uptake by day 14, ordered by FDG-PET mSUVmax and indicating corresponding CT responses and patient and tumor characteristics, and new lesions identified by FDG-PET. Of the 35 patients with tumor tissue evaluable for mutations, 4 had sensitizing EGFR mutations and 7 had KRAS mutations.

The 4 sensitizing EGFR mutations were: 1 in exon 18, 1 in exon 19 (deletion), and 2 in exon 21 (L858R). All 3 of the 4 patients with CT PR, who had evaluable archival tumor tissue, had EGFR mutations (2 with L858R and 1 exon 18); these 3 patients were females with adenocarcinoma (2 white and 1 Asian; Table 3). All exhibited a greater decrease in mSUVmax on day 14 (median: −55.3%, range: −72.3%, −43.9%) than the 6 patients with day 14 PMR and confirmed EGFR wild-type tumors (median: −19.9%, range: −36.4%, −19.1%). Furthermore, these 3 patients with EGFR mutant tumors had a sustained reduction of mSUVmax on day 56, whereas only 2 of 6 patients with EGFR wild-type tumors maintained the same degree of mSUVmax reduction on day 56 compared with day 14 (see Fig. 2A and C). The patient with an exon 19 deletion had both CT stable disease on day 56 and stable disease by PET on both days 14 and 56. In addition to these 4 patients, 1 patient was found to have an EGFR exon 20 insertion. This mutation is associated with resistance to EGFR TKIs (37) and indeed, this patient had CT progressive disease (PD) on day 56 and PET progression on days 14 and 56.

All 7 patients with KRAS mutant tumors had CT-stable disease on day 56. Interestingly, 1 of these patients had a day 56 PMR but day 14 PMD (28th from the left in Fig. 2A). This is the only patient who showed this reverse response. This white male patient is a current smoker with KRAS mutant adenocarcinoma who remained progression free for 32 weeks and survived for 12 months.

A summary of findings from the biomarkers analysis (EGFR and KRAS mutation status) is shown in Supplementary Appendix Table 1.

As examples, Figure 3 shows FDG-PET/CT scans for 2 patients with FDG-PET response, 1 with an activating mutation in exon 21 (L858R; Fig. 3A), and 1 with an EGFR wild-type, KRAS mutant tumor (Fig. 3B), illustrating the positive predictive value of FDG-PET for therapeutic activity, independent of the underlying molecular tumor profile.

Figure 3.

Patient examples of FDG-PET/CT responses. A, scans from a 63-year-old Asian female with no smoking history and lung adenocarcinoma [EGFR mutant (L858R), KRAS wild type] are shown. Marked FDG- and FLT-PET responses were seen on days 14 and 56. The day 56 CT scan showed PR; PFS and OS were 16 weeks and 11 months, respectively. (The incidental thyroid nodule lacks response.) B, scans from a 77-year-old white female smoker with lung adenocarcinoma EGFR wild-type and KRAS mutant) are shown. FDG- and FLT-PET (data not shown) scanning on days 14 and 56 shows decreased FDG uptake of the neck node (pink arrow) and right pulmonary lesion (blue arrow) and no change in the left centrally located pulmonary lesion (green arrow). Overall, lesion changes constitute PMR, whereas the day 56 CT scan showed stable disease. PFS and OS in this patient were censored at 24 weeks and 13.6 months, respectively.

Figure 3.

Patient examples of FDG-PET/CT responses. A, scans from a 63-year-old Asian female with no smoking history and lung adenocarcinoma [EGFR mutant (L858R), KRAS wild type] are shown. Marked FDG- and FLT-PET responses were seen on days 14 and 56. The day 56 CT scan showed PR; PFS and OS were 16 weeks and 11 months, respectively. (The incidental thyroid nodule lacks response.) B, scans from a 77-year-old white female smoker with lung adenocarcinoma EGFR wild-type and KRAS mutant) are shown. FDG- and FLT-PET (data not shown) scanning on days 14 and 56 shows decreased FDG uptake of the neck node (pink arrow) and right pulmonary lesion (blue arrow) and no change in the left centrally located pulmonary lesion (green arrow). Overall, lesion changes constitute PMR, whereas the day 56 CT scan showed stable disease. PFS and OS in this patient were censored at 24 weeks and 13.6 months, respectively.

Close modal

In contrast to a recent study by Na and colleagues (21), we did not observe a significant difference in baseline FDG uptake values for PET responders versus nonresponders.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses were conducted that excluded: (i) data from 6 patients whose PET tracer uptake time violated protocol-defined criteria; (ii) data from 7 and 2 patients who violated protocol-defined window for PET scanning on days 14 and 56, respectively; and (iii) data from 4 patients whose PFS assessments may have been affected by PET scan findings on day 56. Each of these sensitivity analyses showed that the association between PET response and PFS and OS was maintained (data not shown).

In addition, the association of day 14 PET response with PFS and OS was tested in all patients who completed day 14 (n = 67), which includes 14 patients who discontinued between day 14 and day 56. The HRs for PFS and OS were 0.56 (P = 0.06) and 0.57 (P = 0.09) for FDG and 0.6 (P = 0.17) and 0.85 (P = 0.66) for FLT thereby showing a maintained positive trend of association of early PET response with clinical outcome.

The association of day 14 PET response with clinical outcome was also tested in the subset of patient with EGFR wild-type tumors; 6 of 31 and 4 of 30 patients with evaluable EGFR wild-type tissue had day 14 FDG and FLT PMR, respectively. Even though the numbers were small, there was a trend toward improved PFS in patients with day 14 PET response. The median PFS and OS were 5 and 10 months, respectively, for patients with EGFR wild-type tumors who had day 14 FDG response (PMR), compared with PFS of 2.8 months (HR = 0.45, P = 0.1) and OS of 7.6 months (HR = 0.7, P = 0.47) for nonresponders. Similarly, for day 14 FLT responders versus nonresponders, the median PFS and OS were 6 and 7.7 months versus 3.5 months (HR = 0.47, P = 0.2) and 7.6 months (HR = 1.04, P = 0.95), respectively.

When a threshold of a ≥25% decrease in mSUVmax was applied to define PET response on day 56, the FDG- and FLT-PET response rates are lower with 11.8% and 8% than those reported in Table 2. The corresponding HRs (P value) for PFS and OS are 0.31 (0.02) and 0.36 (0.07) for FDG and 0.17 (0.01) and 0.38 (0.16) for FLT, indicating a similar correlation between PET response and clinical outcome as using a cutoff of 15% to define PET response.

Finally, to further explore the relationship between mSUVmax and efficacy outcomes, a Cox proportional hazards model by using mSUVmax as a continuous measurement showed that for FDG-PET, day 14 and day 56 mSUVmax were positively correlated with PFS (P < 0.001 value for both), and day 14 mSUVmax, but not day 56 mSUVmax (P = 0.12), was correlated with OS (P = 0.025). For FLT-PET, day 56 mSUVmax showed a positive correlation with PFS (P = 0.002) and OS (P = 0.05).

Potentially prognostic parameters were evaluated. Neither baseline SUVmax nor the number of FDG target lesions were found to be predictive of PET response.

Safety

AEs were consistent with those previously reported in patients treated with erlotinib (26). No FLT-related AEs were identified.

To our knowledge, this is (i) the largest prospective study of NSCLC patients evaluated with both FDG- and FLT-PET imaging in direct correlation with standard CT imaging and tumor tissue evaluation and (ii) the largest prospective study to evaluate PET imaging and its association with PFS and OS in the setting of a molecularly targeted therapy for NSCLC. Our results are consistent with and greatly expand on results from several smaller clinical studies of PET imaging in NSCLC patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, although none of these other studies directly compared FDG- and FLT-PET imaging (21–24, 39). For example, Sohn and colleagues found that an FLT-PET scan after 7 days of gefitinib treatment could predict the response to treatment in 28 nonsmokers with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung (22). Sunaga and colleagues reported similar findings with FDG-PET scans at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment with gefitinib (21). Soto Parra and colleagues recently reported that FDG-PET–detected changes occurring as early as 2 days after starting erlotinib can predict response in NSCLC patients (24). Our results about the utility of FDG-PET are concordant with the results from studies in other cancer types and/or utilizing other molecularly targeted therapies. For instance, a recent study in patients with head and neck cancer showed that FDG-PET was reliable for detection of early responses to erlotinib (40). Similar results were seen in a study of imatinib for treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and FDG-PET scans are now commonly used to assess responses in this setting (41).

The primary purpose of this study was to assess whether FDG- and FLT-PET scans provide an early indication of therapeutic activity and subsequent clinical benefit in patients treated with an agent that has primarily cytostatic activity and for which standard imaging with CT is less informative. To focus our evaluation on the role of molecular imaging, we specifically evaluated NSCLC patients treated with the established molecularly targeted agent, erlotinib, which had already shown prolonged survival despite a low objective RECIST response rate (26, 27, 35). We have previously reported on the high degree of imaging protocol compliance across multiple clinical sites on this study (37), showing the feasibility of evaluating quantitative PET imaging in this setting. The results presented here indicate that both FDG- and FLT-PET imaging techniques provide additional information beyond standard CT imaging, especially when conducted early during erlotinib treatment.

We found that FDG- and FLT-PET scans identify more responding patients and more progressing patients than standard CT assessment. FDG imaging identified more responders than FLT imaging at both time points days 14 and 56. However, only FDG-PET scanning on day 14 was associated with both improved PFS and OS, irrespective of whether an RECIST response by CT was seen. Patients with FDG-PMR on day 14 had a median OS of 11.6 months compared with 7.6 months in those without a PMR (P = 0.03).

The likelihood of obtaining a response by FDG-PET did not seem to be associated with particular patient or tumor characteristics, although sample sizes were low in several subgroups. Nevertheless, those patients who eventually achieved an RECIST PR also had the most profound and sustained FDG PMR at the early time point and were found to have an underlying activating EGFR mutation. These results support the suggestion that cells with activating EGFR mutations are oncogene-addicted and decreased signaling through this pathway leads to a marked reduction in glucose utilization and subsequent cell death, possibly through apoptosis, leading to morphological regression. Preclinical studies with the EGFR kinase inhibitor gefitinib showed a dramatic decrease in FDG uptake in gefitinib-sensitive cell lines, also showing translocation of glucose transporters from the plasma membrane to the cytosol, reduced glucose transport rates, and reduced hexokinase activity (42). These metabolic alterations were found to precede changes in cell-cycle distribution, thymidine uptake, and apoptosis. In contrast, gefitinib-resistant cells exhibited no measurable changes in FDG uptake, either in cell culture or in vivo. Similarly, preclinical studies of cells transfected with a mutant tyrosine kinase, c-KIT, treated with a targeted kinase inhibitor, imatinib, have shown that a reduction in glucose utilization precedes cell death (43). Therefore, FDG-PET–based evidence of reduced glucose utilization may be associated with subsequent tumor regression and beneficial therapeutic effect. In contrast, early FDG-PET responses in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors seem to be predominantly associated with an SUVmax reduction of lesser magnitude. This might be interpreted as a less marked, yet clinically meaningful, treatment effect of erlotinib in a subset of patients with EGFR wild-type tumors.

Although prior studies have raised questions about benefit of EGFR TKIs in NSCLC patients with KRAS mutant tumors (30, 32), the FDG-PET responses seen in 2 patients in our study suggest that erlotinib may have clinically relevant effects on NSCLC tumors even in the presence of enhanced signaling through the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway.

Interestingly, we found the results of FDG scans to be more informative than those of FLT scans. This is in contrast to preclinical observations that found FLT but not FDG-PET imaging to be a robust early indicator of erlotinib response in EGFR-dependent tumor models (43). Clinically, however, in NSCLC patients, FLT has relatively low uptake compared with FDG in many lesions. For instance, among the 217 lesions quantitatively assessed in our study, baseline FLT uptake uncorrected for lean body mass was lower (median SUVmax = 4.2, range: 1.0–12.2) than uptake of FDG (median SUVmax = 8.8, range: 1.6–31.7). FLT also has relatively high background uptake, particularly in liver and bone marrow. As a consequence, the degree to which changes in FLT uptake can be measured in response to erlotinib might be limited. However, given the desire to assess response by RECIST, bone lesions were seldom chosen in this study, thereby limiting potential discordance between FDG and FLT in assessing therapeutic response. Consequently, of 186 RECIST-evaluable lesions, 167 were assessed by both FDG and FLT; 18 FDG-avid lesions were not evaluable on FLT due to either low uptake or high physiologic background, whereas only 1 lesion was not evaluable on FDG (due to insufficient contrast to delineate the lesion), but was assessable on FLT. Including only lesions evaluated by both tracers did not alter the classification of any patient from responder to nonresponder on day 14 or day 56 FDG-PET.

It is important to note that the immediate downstream signaling target of EGFR is phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase, which regulates AKT, a serine/threonine protein kinase that plays a critical role in glucose metabolism. Accordingly, it is not surprising that FDG might provide an earlier readout of biological effects related to reduced EGFR signaling. Thus, it should not be assumed that FDG-PET will be a superior technique for therapeutic response assessment with all molecular-targeted therapies.

For FDG-PET, we used the EORTC definition of a PMR as a 15% or greater fall in mSUVmax that has been recommended for the assessment of early treatment changes (6). Other smaller studies investigating FDG-PET imaging following treatment with EGFR TKIs have utilized a cutoff of 15% arriving at similar results and showing an association of PET response with improved clinical outcome (25). The EORTC guidelines further recommend a cutoff of 25% as a more meaningful reduction at later time points, specifically after completion of more than 1 cycle of chemotherapy.

Although our exploratory analyses confirm our results even if a 25% cutoff is applied to measure PET response on day 56, it is important to recognize that the magnitude of posttreatment changes might be lower following molecularly targeted or cytostatic therapy versus cytotoxic chemotherapy; hence, the appropriate definition of PET response may depend on the clinical setting and specific therapy.

Although our study showed an association between both FDG- and FLT-PET response and PFS/OS, the following question naturally arises: does this have implications for clinical practice? The current study was not designed to address this. While the data from our study are informative and support the use of PET imaging to detect clinically meaningful drug activity in the context of clinical drug development, they do not permit definitive conclusions pertaining to patient management. In particular, this study did not address whether a change in therapy, such as dose escalation or drug substitution, on the basis of (early) PET response would improve patient outcome. Additional clinical studies would be required to address this question. It will be important that future studies also assess how patient-reported outcomes correlate with PET imaging findings, given that symptomatic improvement with erlotinib may be seen very early in treatment for those who benefit (26, 27).

Nevertheless, we believe that these results strongly support the inclusion of PET imaging in clinical studies that test the clinical activity of novel targeted therapies, particularly for treatments anticipated to have primarily cytostatic effects. In addition, by correlating early PET changes with tumor tissue biomarkers, PET may also prove useful for identifying underlying tumor characteristics in a responder subpopulation.

B. Hughes, consultant, Roche; P. Mitchell, consultant, Roche; B. Solomon, consultant and speaker, Roche; V. Charu, commercial research grant, Genentech, Inc., other commercial support, Roche, Ltd, consultant, Genentech; L. Amler, W. Yu, A. Pirzkall, B. Fine, employees, Genentech, Inc. and hold stock with Roche, Ltd. The other authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

We thank all the patients who participated in the study, and the clinical site teams: (in Australia) Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria; Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria; Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland; Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland; (in the USA) USC Medical Center Kenneth Norris Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA; Pacific Cancer Medical Center, Inc., Anaheim, CA; St. Joseph Hospital, Regional Cancer Center, Orange, CA; and the Wilshire Oncology Medical Group, Inc., Corona, CA. We acknowledge the site investigators M. Burge, T. Byun, P. Conti, J. Goh, F. Howard, S. Kipper, K. Lee, A.M. Scott, and H. Trung, as well as staff at the central reading site at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, especially D. Binns and J. Callahan. We also thank A. Craiu, Ph.D., of Genentech, Inc., for assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Therasse
P
,
Arbuck
SG
,
Eisenhauer
EA
,
Wanders
J
,
Kaplan
RS
,
Rubinstein
L
, et al
New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2000
;
92
:
205
16
.
2.
Wahl
RL
,
Jacene
H
,
Kasamon
Y
,
Lodge
MA
. 
From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors
.
J Nucl Med
2009
;
50
Suppl 1
:
122s
47s
.
3.
Tuma
R
. 
Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2006
;
98
:
1272
4
.
4.
Vansteenkiste
J
,
Fischer
BM
,
Dooms
C
,
Mortensen
J
. 
Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review
.
Lancet Oncol
2004
;
5
:
531
40
.
5.
Zhao
B
,
Oxnard
GR
,
Moskowitz
CS
,
Kris
MG
,
Pao
W
,
Guo
P
, et al
A pilot study of volume measurement as a method of tumor response evaluation to aid biomarker development
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
4647
53
.
6.
Young
H
,
Baum
R
,
Cremerius
U
,
Herholz
K
,
Hoekstra
O
,
Lammertsma
AA
, et al
Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group
.
Eur J Cancer
1999
;
35
:
1773
82
.
7.
Barthel
H
,
Cleij
MC
,
Collingridge
DR
,
Hutchinson
OC
,
Osman
S
,
He
Q
, et al
3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine as a new marker for monitoring tumor response to antiproliferative therapy in vivo with positron emission tomography
.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
3791
8
.
8.
Kelloff
GJ
,
Hoffman
JM
,
Johnson
B
,
Scher
HI
,
Siegel
BA
,
Cheng
EY
, et al
Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development
.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
2785
808
.
9.
Saleem
A
,
Charnley
N
,
Price
P
. 
Clinical molecular imaging with positron emission tomography
.
Eur J Cancer
2006
;
42
:
1720
7
.
10.
Shankar
LK
,
Hoffman
JM
,
Bacharach
S
,
Graham
MM
,
Karp
J
,
Lammertsma
AA
, et al
Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials
.
J Nucl Med
2006
;
47
:
1059
66
11.
Delbeke
D
,
Coleman
RE
,
Guiberteau
MJ
,
Brown
ML
,
Royal
HD
,
Siegel
BA
, et al
Procedure guideline for tumour imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0
.
J Nucl Med
2006
;
47
:
885
95
.
12.
Boellaard
R
,
O'Doherty
MJ
,
Weber
WA
,
Mottaghy
FM
,
Lonsdale
MN
,
Stroobants
SG
, et al
FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0
.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2010
;
37
:
181
200
.
13.
Kalff
V
,
Hicks
RJ
,
MacManus
MP
,
Binns
DS
,
McKenzie
AF
,
Ware
RE
, et al
Clinical impact of 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study
.
J Clin Oncol
2001
;
19
:
111
8
.
14.
Hicks
RJ
. 
Role of FDG PET in response assessment in non-small cell lung cancer
.
J Nuc Med
2009
;
50
Suppl 1
:
31S
42S
.
15.
Shields
AF
. 
PET imaging with 18F-FLT and thymidine analogs: promise and pitfalls
.
J Nucl Med
2003
;
44
:
1432
4
.
16.
Yap
CS
,
Czernin
J
,
Fishbein
MC
,
Cameron
RB
,
Schiepers
C
,
Phelps
ME
, et al
Evaluation of thoracic tumors with 18F-fluorothymidine and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography
.
Chest
2006
;
129
:
393
401
.
17.
Muzi
M
,
Vesselle
H
,
Grierson
JR
,
Mankoff
DA
,
Schmidt
RA
,
Peterson
L
, et al
Kinetic analysis of 3′-deoxy-3′fluorothymidine PET studies: validation studies in patients with lung cancer
.
J Nucl Med
2005
;
46
:
274
82
.
18.
Weber
WA
. 
Monitoring tumor response to therapy with 18F-FLT PET
.
J Nucl Med
2010
;
51
:
841
4
.
19.
Wieder
HA
,
Geinitz
H
,
Rosenberg
R
,
Lordick
F
,
Becker
K
,
Stahl
A
, et al
PET imaging with [18F]3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine for prediction of response to neoadjuvant treatment in patients with rectal cancer
.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2007
;
34
:
878
83
.
20.
Herbst
RS
,
Davies
AM
,
Natale
RB
,
Dang
TP
,
Schiller
JH
,
Garland
LL
, et al
Efficacy and safety of single-agent pertuzumab, a human epidermal receptor dimerization inhibitor, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
6175
81
.
21.
Na
II
,
Byun
BH
,
Kang
HJ
,
Cheon
GJ
,
Koh
JS
,
Kim
CH
, et al
18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose uptake predicts clinical outcome in patients with gefitinib-treated non-small cell lung cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
2036
41
.
22.
Sunaga
N
,
Oriuchi
N
,
Kaira
K
,
Yanagitani
N
,
Tomizawa
Y
,
Hisada
T
, et al
Usefulness of FDG-PET for early prediction of the response to gefitinib in non-small cell lung cancer
.
Lung Cancer
2008
;
59
:
203
10
.
23.
Sohn
HJ
,
Yang
YJ
,
Ryu
JS
,
Oh
SJ
,
Im
KC
,
Moon
DH
, et al
[18F]Fluorothymidine positron emission tomography before and 7 days after gefitinib treatment predicts response in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
7423
9
.
24.
Ullrich
RT
,
Zander
T
,
Neumaier
B
,
Koker
M
,
Shimamura
T
,
Waerzeggers
Y
, et al
Early detection of erlotinib treatment response in NSCLC by 3′-deoxy-3′-[F]-fluoro-L-thymidine ([F]FLT) positron emission tomography (PET)
.
PLoS One
2008
;
3
:
e3908
.
25.
Soto
Parra H
,
Ippolito
M
,
Tiseo
M
,
Cosentino
S
,
Ardizzoni
A
,
Latteri
F
, et al
Usefulness of 18FDG-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for early prediction of erlotinib (Eb) treatment outcome in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of a pilot study
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:399s;
abstr 7568
.
26.
Erlotinib (Tarceva), prescribing information
.
[updated 2010 Apr 19; cited 2010 Sept 9]. Available from
: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/021743s14s16lbl.pdf
27.
Shepherd
FA
,
Rodrigues
Pereira J
,
Ciuleanu
T
,
Tan
EH
,
Hirsh
V
,
Thongprasert
S
, et al
Erlotinib in previously treated non–small-cell lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2005
;
353
:
123
32
.
28.
Azzoli
CG
,
Baker
S
 Jr
,
Temin
S
,
Pao
W
,
Aliff
T
,
Brahmer
J
, et al
American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:
6251
66
.
29.
D'Addario
G
,
Früh
M
,
Reck
M
,
Baumann
P
,
Klepetko
W
,
Felip
E
, et al
Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
.
Ann Oncol
2010
;
21
:
Suppl 5
:
v116
9
.
30.
Eberhard
DA
,
Johnson
BE
,
Amler
LC
,
Goddard
AD
,
Heldens
SL
,
Herbst
RS
, et al
Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor and in KRAS are predictive and prognostic indicators in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy alone and in combination with erlotinib
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
5856
8
.
31.
Tsao
MS
,
Sakurada
A
,
Cutz
JC
,
Zhu
CQ
,
Kamel-Reid
S
,
Squire
J
, et al
Erlotinib in lung cancer—molecular and clinical predictors of outcome
.
N Engl J Med
2005
;
353
:
133
44
.
32.
Zhu
C-Q
,
da Cunha Santos
G
,
Ding
K
,
Sakurada
A
,
Cutz
JC
,
Liu
N
, et al
Role of KRAS and EGFR as biomarkers of response to erlotinib in National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
4268
75
.
33.
Herbst
RS
,
Stern
H
,
Amler
L
,
Otterson
G
,
Ling
M
,
O'Connor
P
, et al
Biomarker evaluation in the Phase III, placebo-controlled, randomized BeTa trial of bevacizumab and erlotinib for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of standard 1st-line chemotherapy: correlation with treatment outcomes
.
J Thorac Oncol
2009
;
4
:
S323
;
abstract B2.1
.
34.
Paz-Ares
L
,
Soulières
D
,
Melezínek
I
,
Moecks
J
,
Keil
L
,
Mok
T
, et al
Clinical outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations: pooled analysis
.
J Cell Mol Med
2010
;
14
:
51
69
.
35.
Cappuzzo
F
,
Ciuleanu
T
,
Stelmakh
L
,
Cicenas
S
,
Szczésna
A
,
Juhász
E
, et al
Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study
.
Lancet Oncol
2010
;
11
:
521
9
.
36.
Kabbinavar
F
,
Miller
VA
,
Johnson
BE
,
O'Connor
PG
,
Soh
C
. 
Overall survival in ATLAS, a Phase IIIb trial comparing bevacizumab therapy +/-erlotinib after completion of chemotherapy with bevacizumab for first-line treatment of locally-advanced, recurrent, or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
.
J Clin Oncol
2010
;
28
:
7s
;
abstract 7526
.
37.
Binns
DS
,
Pirzkall
A
,
Yu
W
,
Callahan
J
,
Mileshkin
L
,
Conti
P
, et al
Compliance with PET acquisition protocols for therapeutic monitoring of erlotinib therapy in an international trial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer
.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.
In press 2011
.
38.
Linardou
H
,
Dahabreh
IJ
,
Bafaloukos
D
,
Kosmidis
P
,
Murray
S
. 
Somatic EGFR mutations and efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in NSCLC
.
Nature
2009
;
6
:
352
66
.
39.
Aukema
TS
,
Kappers
I
,
Olmos
RA
,
Codrington
HE
,
van Tinteren
H
,
van Pel
R
, et al
Is 18F-FDG PET/CT useful for the early prediction of histopathologic response to neoadjuvant erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer?
J Nucl Med
2010
;
51
:
1344
8
.
40.
Vergez
S
,
Delord
JP
,
Thomas
F
,
Rochaix
P
,
Caselles
O
,
Filleron
T
, et al
Preclinical and clinical evidence that deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography is a reliable tool for the detection of early molecular responses to erlotinib in head and neck cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
4434
45
.
41.
Demetri
GD
,
Heinrich
MC
,
Fletcher
JA
,
Fletcher
CD
,
Van den Abbeele
AD
,
Corless
CL
, et al
Molecular target modulation, imaging, and clinical evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients treated with sunitinib malate after imatinib failure
.
Clin Cancer Res
2009
;
15
:
5902
9
.
42.
Su
H
,
Bodenstein
C
,
Dumont
RA
,
Seimbille
Y
,
Dubinett
S
,
Phelps
ME
, et al
Monitoring tumor glucose utilization by positron emission tomography for the prediction of treatment response to epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors
.
Clin Cancer Res
2006
;
12
:
5659
67
.
43.
Cullinane
C
,
Dorow
DS
,
Kansara
M
,
Conus
N
,
Binns
D
,
Hicks
RJ
, et al
An in vivo tumor model exploiting metabolic response as a biomarker for targeted drug development
.
Cancer Res
2005
;
65
:
9633
6
.