Back to Search
Start Over
[ 68 Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT for staging and prognostic assessment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: comparison to [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT.
- Source :
-
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging [Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging] 2024 Jun; Vol. 51 (7), pp. 1926-1936. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jan 30. - Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate the prognostic performance of [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT at baseline for staging of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and to compare it with [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]FDG PET/CT and the Revised-International Staging System (R-ISS).<br />Methods: Patients who underwent [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor and [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]FDG PET/CT imaging were retrospectively included. Patient staging was performed according to the Durie-Salmon PLUS staging system based on [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT and [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]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.<br />Results: Fifty-five MM patients were evaluated. Compared with [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]FDG PET, [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]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 [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT and [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.091). [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]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 [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]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 [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT was significantly higher than that of [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor PET (0.923 vs. 0.821, P = 0.002), [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]FDG PET (0.923 vs. 0.752 P = 0.002), and R-ISS (0.923 vs. 0.776, P = 0.005).<br />Conclusions: [ <superscript>68</superscript> Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT-based staging possesses substantial potential to predict disease progression in newly diagnosed MM patients.<br /> (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1619-7089
- Volume :
- 51
- Issue :
- 7
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 38286937
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-024-06621-0