Menda, Yusuf

Abstract Purpose: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is an attractive target for radiopharmaceutical therapy. Phase I of the LuMIERE study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04939610) investigated the safety of [177Lu]Lu-FAP-2286 (177Lu-FAP-2286) in heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumors and identified the recommended phase II dosage (RP2D). Patients and Methods: LuMIERE is a prospective, open-label, nonrandomized, phase I/II, multicenter study. Phase I followed a Bayesian optimal interval design evaluating four escalating activity levels of 177Lu-FAP-2286 (3.70, 5.55, 7.40, and 9.25 GBq). Patients were selected by positive [68Ga]Ga-FAP-2286 (68Ga-FAP-2286, also known as [68Ga]Ga-HKG301) PET/CT imaging on all target lesions [maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥1.5× SUVmean of mediastinal blood pool]. 177Lu-FAP-2286 was administered intravenously every 6 weeks for ≤6 cycles. The primary endpoint was dosage-limiting toxicities (DLT) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). Results: Of 35 patients imaged with 68Ga-FAP-2286, 27 received 177Lu-FAP-2286 (3.70 GBq, n = 3; 5.55 GBq, n = 6; 7.40 GBq, n = 7; 9.25 GBq, n = 11). Two DLTs were observed: one patient who received 5.55 GBq of 177Lu-FAP-2286 experienced grade 4 lymphopenia, and one patient who received 9.25 GBq experienced grade 3 hemoptysis; these were the only treatment-related grade ≥3 TEAEs. All-cause grade ≥3 TEAEs were reported for 11 patients (40.7%). The RP2D for 177Lu-FAP-2286 monotherapy was determined to be 9.25 GBq. Preliminary Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors efficacy findings demonstrated a partial response in 1 patient and stable disease in 10 patients (maintained for at least two assessments in 6 patients). Conclusions: 177Lu-FAP-2286 was well tolerated in patients with advanced solid tumors. The safety and preliminary efficacy findings support its continued development in phase II.

AbstractThis article is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the medical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The guidelines panel consisted of medical oncologists, pathologists, gastroenterologists, endocrinologists, and radiologists. The panel reviewed a series of questions regarding the medical management of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors as well as questions regarding surveillance after resection. The available literature was reviewed for each of the question and panel members voted on controversial topics, and the recommendations were included in a document circulated to all panel members for a final approval.

Abstract This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.

Purpose To determine whether a response classification based on integration of fluorine-18–fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) into the International Workshop Criteria (IWC) provides a more accurate response assessment than IWC alone in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Patients and Methods Fifty-four patients with aggressive NHL who underwent FDG-PET and computed tomography 1 to 16 weeks after four to eight cycles of chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone were assessed for complete response (CR), unconfirmed CR (CRu), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) by the IWC and by integrated IWC and FDG-PET (IWC+PET). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also compared between IWC- and IWC+PET-assigned response designations. Results By IWC, 17 patients had a CR, seven had a CRu, 19 had a PR, nine had SD, and two had PD. In comparison, by IWC+PET, 35 patients had a CR, 12 had a PR, six had SD, one had PD, and zero had a CRu. In separate multivariate models, PFS was significantly shorter in patients with PR than in those with a CR using IWC (hazard ratio [HR], 8.9; P = .021) or IWC+PET (HR, 29.7; P = .0003). However, when the two classifications were included in the same multivariate model, only IWC+PET was a statistically significant independent predictor for PFS (P = .008 v P = .72 for IWC). In addition, when patients with a PR by IWC and a CR by IWC+PET were compared with those with a CR by IWC and a CR by IWC+PET, there was no significant difference in PFS (HR, 1.6; P = .72), indicating that IWC+PET identified a subset of IWC-PR patients with a more favorable prognosis. Conclusion Compared with IWC, the IWC+PET-based assessment provides a more accurate response classification in patients with aggressive NHL.