Page 225 - 18F-FDG PET as biomarker in aggressive lymphoma; technical and clinical validation

Optimal timing and response criteria of Interim-PET in DLBCL
the DS5 criterion had a higher discriminative power than ∆SUVmax, it identified a smaller group of poor responders. The optimal timing for identifying good responders is after 2 cycles. Good response at I-PET2 may qualify as a starting point for de-escalation trials. Poor response at I-PET4 using ∆SUVmax response criteria may work best for randomized trials evaluating new therapy regimens. However, optimal timing and response criteria may vary, depending on the clinical context of the study.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all the patients who took part in the trials, the collaborating investigators who kindly supplied their data, all data managers, and the central and local review groups who scored the I-PET scans. This work was supported by a grant from the Alpe d’HuZes (#VU 2012-5848) provided by the Dutch Cancer Society. The sponsor had no role in gathering, analyzing, or interpreting the data. S.F.B. acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health Research and Social Care (NIHR) (RP-2-16-07-001). King’s College London and University College London Comprehensive Cancer Imaging Center is funded by Cancer Research United Kingdom and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in association with the Medical Research Council and Department of Health and Social Care. S.F.B. was also supported by the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering at King’s College London (WT 203148/Z/16/Z). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
223
8