PET-CR as a potential surrogate endpoint in untreated DLBCL: meta-analysis and implications for clinical trial design

References

• Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):414–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nuc Med. 2006;47(6):901–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coughlan M, Elstrom R. The use of FDG-PET in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL): predicting outcome following first line therapy. Cancer Imaging. 2014;14(1):34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kostakoglu L, Nowakowski GS. End-of-treatment PET/computed tomography response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PET Clin. 2019;14(3):307–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashen AF, Dehdashti F, Luo J, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: poor predictive value of international harmonization project interpretation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(3):386–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pregno P, Chiappella A, Bellò M, et al. Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP. Blood. 2012;119(9):2066–2073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu Y, Lu J, Wei X, et al. The predictive value of interim and final [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after rituximab-chemotherapy in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:275805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams HJ, Nievelstein RA, Kwee TC. Prognostic value of complete remission status at end-of-treatment FDG-PET in R-CHOP-treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Haematol. 2015;170(2):185–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schöder H, Polley MC, Knopp MV, et al. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell lymphoma: results from the CALGB 50303 clinical trial. Blood. 2020;135(25):2224–2234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allioux F, Gandhi D, Vilque J-P, et al. End-of-treatment 18 F-FDG PET/CT in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients: ΔSUV outperforms deauville score. Leuk Lymphoma. 2021;62(12):2890–2898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostakoglu L, Martelli M, Sehn LH, et al. End-of-treatment PET/CT predicts PFS and OS in DLBCL after first-line treatment: results from GOYA. Blood Adv. 2021;5(5):1283–1290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. FDA facilitates the use of surrogate endpoints in drug development; November 5, 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 4]. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/SmallBusinessAssistance/ucm625076.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Weir CJ, Walley RJ. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med. 2006;25(2):183–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roschewski M, Dunleavy K, Wilson WH. Moving beyond rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(11):2428–2437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubuschok B, Trep M. Learning from the failures of drug discovery in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and perspectives for the future: chronic lymphocytic leukemia and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma as two ends of a spectrum in drug development. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2017;12(7):733–745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondello P, Mian M. Frontline treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: beyond R-CHOP. Hematol Oncol. 2019;37(4):333–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Pathological complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk early-stage breast cancer: use as an endpoint to support accelerated approval. Guidance for industry, October 2014; July 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 4]. Clinical/Medical Revision I. https://www.fda.gov/media/83507/download.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use. The role of pathological complete response as an endpoint in neoadjuvant breast cancer studies. EMA/CHMP/151853/2014; March 20, 2014 [cited 2020 Jul 4]. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/draft-guideline-role-pathological-complete-response-endpoint-neoadjuvant-breast-cancer-studies_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry DA, Hudis CA. Neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer as a basis for drug approval. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):875–876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry DA. Right-sizing adjuvant and neoadjuvant clinical trials in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):3–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry DA. Emerging innovations in clinical trial design. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(1):82–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meignan M, Gallamini A, Itti E, et al. Report on the third international workshop on interim positron emission tomography in lymphoma held in menton, France, 26-27 september 2011 and menton 2011 consensus. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53(10):1876–1881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meignan M, Barrington S, Itti E, et al. Report on the 4th international workshop on positron emission tomography in lymphoma held in menton, France, 3–5 october 2012. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(1):31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJNM, et al. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broglio KR, Quintana M, Foster M, et al. Association of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer with long-term outcomes: a Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):751–760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas A, Gingrich RD, Smith BJ, et al. 18-Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography report interpretation as predictor of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma including analysis of 'indeterminate' reports. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51(3):439–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Micallef IN, Maurer MJ, Wiseman GA, et al. Epratuzumab with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118(15):4053–4061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortés Romera M, Gámez Cenzano C, Caresia Aróztegui AP. Utility of the PET-CT in the evaluation of early response to treatment in the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Preliminary results. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2012;31(3):135–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Barca E, Canales M, Cortés M, et al. Predictive value of interim 18F-FDG-PET/CT for event-free survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma homogenously treated in a phase II trial with six cycles of R-CHOP-14 plus pegfilgrastim as first-line treatment. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34(10):946–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abo-Sheisha DM, Fattah OA. Prognostic evaluation of PET/CT in residual post-chemotherapy masses in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and its impact on survival. Egyptian J Radiol Nuc Med. 2014;45(3):921–928.
   Google Scholar
• Carr R, Fanti D, Paez J, IAEA Lymphoma Study Group, et al. Prospective international cohort study demonstrates inability of interim PET to predict treatment failure in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(12):1936–1944.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabaja BS, Hess K, Shihadeh F, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography findings during therapy predict outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with chemotherapy alone but not in those who receive consolidation radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(2):384–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mylam KJ, El-Galaly TC, Hutchings M, et al. Prognostic impact of clinician-based interpretation of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography reports obtained in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(7):1563–1569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiniker SM, Pollom EL, Khodadoust MS, et al. Value of surveillance studies for patients with stage I to II diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92(1):99–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamot C, Klingbiel D, Hitz F, et al. Final results of a prospective evaluation of the predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP-14 (SAKK 38/07). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2523–2529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Fan W, Hu YY, et al. Qualitative visual trichotomous assessment improves the value of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in predicting the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Chin J Cancer. 2015;34(3):264–271.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basit A, Siddiqui N, Muzaffar N, et al. Interim18 F-FLUORO-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography scan/computed tomography scan in diffuse large B cell lymphoma-as a prognostic tool. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016;66(4):380–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishton MJ, Hughes S, Richardson F, et al. Delineating outcomes of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma using the national comprehensive cancer network-international prognostic index and positron emission tomography-defined remission status; a population-based analysis. Br J Haematol. 2016;172(2):246–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han EJ, O JH, Yoon H, et al. FDG PET/CT response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: reader variability and association with clinical outcome. Medicine. 2016;95(39):e4983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraeber-Bodere F, Pallardy A, Maisonneuve H, et al. Consolidation anti-CD22 fractionated radioimmunotherapy with 90 Y-epratuzumab tetraxetan following R-CHOP in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a prospective, single group, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(1):e35–e45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Song YS, Lee JS, et al. Risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with interim PET-CT based on different cutoff deauville scores. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59(2):340–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sehn LH, Martelli M, Trněný M, et al. A randomized, open-label, phase III study of obinutuzumab or rituximab plus CHOP in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: final analysis of GOYA. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13(1):71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharman JP, Forero-Torres A, Costa LJ, et al. Obinutuzumab plus CHOP is effective and has a tolerable safety profile in previously untreated, advanced diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the phase II GATHER study. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60(4):894–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowakowski GS, LaPlant B, Macon WR, et al. Lenalidomide combined with R-CHOP overcomes negative prognostic impact of non-germinal center B-cell phenotype in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):251–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of international harmonization project in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(5):571–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(4):1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheson BD. The international harmonization project for response criteria in lymphoma clinical trials. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2007;21(5):841–854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma prognostic factors project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):987–994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sehn LH, Berry B, Chhanabhai M, et al. The revised international prognostic index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood. 2007;109(5):1857–1861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg SA. Validity of the ann arbor staging classification for the non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Cancer Treat Rep. 1977;61:1023–1027.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar