Back to Authors

Higley, Howard R.

Mayo Clinic

CCS Associates (United States)

Citations 5

Is local review of positron emission tomography scans sufficient in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma clinical trials? A CALGB 50303 analysis
Torka, Pallawi , Pederson, Levi , Knopp, Michael V. , Poon, David, Higley, Howard R., Kelloff, Gary J. , Friedberg, Jonathan W. , Schwartz, Lawrence H., Wilson, Wyndham H. , Leonard, John P. , Bartlett, Nancy L. , Ruppert, Amy S. , Zhang, Jun , Pederson, Levi D , Schöder, Heiko , Bartlett, Nancy L , Zhang, Jun , Kahl, Brad S. , Schöder, Heiko

Cancer Medicine | February 17, 2023 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 8211-8217

10.1002/cam4.5628 Get It

AbstractBackgroundQuantitative methods of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG‐PET) interpretation, including the percent change in FDG uptake from baseline (ΔSUV), are under investigation in lymphoma to overcome challenges associated with visual scoring systems (VSS) such as the Deauville 5‐point scale (5‐PS).MethodsIn CALGB 50303, patients with DLBCL received frontline R‐CHOP or DA‐EPOCH‐R, and although there were no significant associations between interim PET responses assessed centrally after cycle 2 (iPET) using 5‐PS with progression‐free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), there were significant associations between central determinations of iPET ∆SUV with PFS/OS. In this patient cohort, we retrospectively compared local vs central iPET readings and evaluated associations between local imaging data and survival outcomes.ResultsAgreement between local and central review was moderate (kappa = 0.53) for VSS and high (kappa = 0.81) for ∆SUV categories (<66% vs. ≥66%). ∆SUV ≥66% at iPET was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p = 0.002), but VSS was not. Associations with PFS/OS when applying local review vs central review were comparable.ConclusionsThese data suggest that local PET interpretation for response determination may be acceptable in clinical trials. Our findings also highlight limitations of VSS and call for incorporation of more objective measures of response assessment in clinical trials.
Minimal Residual Disease in Myeloma: Application for Clinical Care and New Drug Registration
Auclair, Daniel , Adam, Stacey J. , Agarwal, Amit , Anderson, Melissa , Bustoros, Mark , Chapman, Jessica R. , Connors, Dana E. , Dash, Ajeeta B. , Bacco, Alessandra Di , Ling, Du, Flores‐Montero, Juan , Ghobrial, Irene M. , Gormley, Nicole , Gupta, Ira, Higley, Howard R., Hillengaß, Jens , Kanapuru, Bindu , Kazandjian, Dickran , Kelloff, Gary J. , Kremer, Brandon E. , Lightbody, Elizabeth D. , Lomas, Oliver , Mateos, María‐Victoria , de, Rocío Montes , Mukundan, Lata , Munshi, Nikhil C. , O’Donnell, Elizabeth , Paiva, Bruno , Patel, Reshma, Pugh, Trevor J. , Ramasamy, Karthik , Ray, Jill, Roshal, Mikhail , Ross, Jeremy A. , Sigman, Caroline C. , Thoren, Katie , Trudel, Suzanne , Ulaner, Gary A. , Valente, Nancy, Weiss, Brendan M. , Zamagni, Elena , Kumar, Shaji , Adam, Stacey J , Anderson, Melissa , Bustoros, Mark , Chapman, Jessica , Connors, Dana E , Dash, Ajeeta B , Di Bacco, Alessandra , Flores-Montero, Juan , Gay, Francesca , Hillengass, Jens , Landgren, C Ola , Lomas, Oliver C , Montes de Oca, Rocio , Pugh, Trevor J , Ramasamy, Karthik , Sigman, Caroline C , Thoren, Katie L , Paiva, Bruno , Ghobrial, Irene M , Ulaner, Gary , Gormley, Nicole , Anderson, Kenneth C. , Avet‐Loiseau, Hervé , Facon, Thierry T.F. , Gay, Francesca , Kirsch, Ilan R. , Landgren, Ola , Lonial, Sagar , Órfão, Alberto , Patel, Reshma, Zamagni, Elena

Clinical Cancer Research | July 28, 2021 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 19 | Pages: 5195-5212

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1059 Get It

AbstractThe development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.
Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell lymphoma: results from the CALGB 50303 Clinical Trial
Schöder, Heiko , Polley, Mei‐Yin C. , Knopp, Michael V. , Kostakoglu, Lale , Zhang, Jun , Higley, Howard R., Kelloff, Gary J. , Liu, Heshan , Zelenetz, Andrew D. , Cheson, Bruce D. , Wagner‐Johnston, Nina D. , Friedberg, Jonathan W. , Leonard, John P. , Schwartz, Lawrence H., Wilson, Wyndham H. , Bartlett, Nancy L. , Bartlett, Nancy L , Kostakoglu, Lale , Zelenetz, Andrew D , Schöder, Heiko , Hall, Nathan C. , Kahl, Brad S. , Hsi, Eric D.

Blood | March 31, 2020 | Volume: 135 | Issue: 25 | Pages: 2224-2234

10.1182/blood.2019003277 Get It

Abstract As part of a randomized, prospective clinical trial in large cell lymphoma, we conducted serial fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) at baseline, after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (interim PET [i-PET]), and at end of treatment (EoT) to identify biomarkers of response that are predictive of remission and survival. Scans were interpreted in a core laboratory by 2 imaging experts, using the visual Deauville 5-point scale (5-PS), and by calculating percent change in FDG uptake (change in standardized uptake value [ΔSUV]). Visual scores of 1 through 3 and ΔSUV ≥66% were prospectively defined as negative. Of 524 patients enrolled in the parent trial, 169 agreed to enroll in the PET substudy and 158 were eligible for final analysis. In this selected population, all had FDG-avid disease at baseline; by 5-PS, 55 (35%) remained positive on i-PET and 28 (18%) on EoT PET. Median ΔSUV on i-PET was 86.2%. With a median follow-up of 5 years, ΔSUV, as continuous variable, was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.00; P = .02) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = .03). ΔSUV ≥66% was predictive of OS (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.85; P = .02) but not PFS (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.19-1.13; P = .09). Visual 5-PS on i-PET did not predict outcome. ΔSUV, but not visual analysis, on i-PET predicted OS in DLBCL, although the low number of events limited the statistical analysis. These data may help guide future clinical trials using PET response-adapted therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00118209.
The Role of Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Myeloma Treatment Selection and Drug Development: Current Value and Future Applications
Auclair, Daniel , Kelloff, Gary J. , Sigman, Caroline C. , Avet‐Loiseau, Hervé , Farrell, Ann T. , Gormley, Nicole , Kumar, Shaji , Munshi, Nikhil C. , Cavo, Michèle , Davies, Faith E. , Bacco, Alessandra Di , Dickey, Jennifer S., Gutman, Steven, Higley, Howard R., Hussein, Mohamad A., Jessup, J. Milburn , Little, Richard F. , Loberg, Robert D., Lohr, Jens G. , Mukundan, Lata , Omel, James, Pugh, Trevor J. , Reaman, Gregory H. , Robbins, Michael , Sasser, A. Kate, Valente, Nancy, Zamagni, Elena , Anderson, Kenneth C. , Landgren, Ola , Kirsch, Ilan R. , Pugh, Trevor J , Davies, Faith E , Gormley, Nicole , Zamagni, Elena

Clinical Cancer Research | April 20, 2017 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 3980-3993

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-2895 Get It

Abstract Treatment of myeloma has benefited from the introduction of more effective and better tolerated agents, improvements in supportive care, better understanding of disease biology, revision of diagnostic criteria, and new sensitive and specific tools for disease prognostication and management. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) in response to therapy is one of these tools, as longer progression-free survival (PFS) is seen consistently among patients who have achieved MRD negativity. Current therapies lead to unprecedented frequency and depth of response, and next-generation flow and sequencing methods to measure MRD in bone marrow are in use and being developed with sensitivities in the range of 10−5 to 10−6 cells. These technologies may be combined with functional imaging to detect MRD outside of bone marrow. Moreover, immune profiling methods are being developed to better understand the immune environment in myeloma and response to immunomodulatory agents while methods for molecular profiling of myeloma cells and circulating DNA in blood are also emerging. With the continued development and standardization of these methodologies, MRD has high potential for use in gaining new drug approvals in myeloma. The FDA has outlined two pathways by which MRD could be qualified as a surrogate endpoint for clinical studies directed at obtaining accelerated approval for new myeloma drugs. Most importantly, better understanding of MRD should also contribute to better treatment monitoring. Potentially, MRD status could be used as a prognostic factor for making treatment decisions and for informing timing of therapeutic interventions. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 3980–93. ©2017 AACR.
Workshop on imaging science development for cancer prevention and preemption
Kelloff, Gary J. , Sullivan, Daniel C. , Baker, Houston, Clarke, Lawrence, Nordstrom, Robert J. , Tatum, James L. , Dorfman, Gary S., Berg, Christine D. , Birrer, Michael J. , Tempero, Margaret A. , Higley, Howard R., Petty, Brenda Gumbs, Sigman, Caroline C. , Ginsberg, Gregory G. , Dannenberg, Andrew J. , Hawk, Ernest T. , Messing, Edward M. , Grossman, H. Barton, Griebel, Donna, Henson, Donald E., Fabian, Carol J. , Zujewski, Jo Anne , Hayes, Wendy, Klein, Eric A. , Ocak, İclal , Tempany, Clare M. , Shtern, Faina, Parnes, Howard L. , Gómez, Jorge , Srivastava, Sudhir , Lam, Stephen , Seibel, Eric J. , Massion, Pierre P. , McLennan, Geoffrey, Burt, Randall W., Hoffman, John M. , El‐Deiry, Wafik S. , Papadimitrakopoulou, Vali, Veltri, Robert W., Solomon, Diane, Viner, Jaye L., Stratton, Steven P. , Rajadhyaksha, Milind , Dhawan, Atam P. , Jacobs, Paula , Pomper, Martin G. , Maley, Carlo C. , Sharma, Prateek , Wax, Adam , Harisinghani, Mukesh G. , Bigio, Irving J. , Ferrara, Katherine W. , Fantini, Sergio , Schnall, Mitchell D. , Zujewski, Jo Anne , Marzo, Angelo M. De , Ketterling, Jeffrey A. , Szabó, Éva , Cleary, Kevin , Suh, Robert D. , Pfeiffer, Ruth M. , Roy, Hemant K. , Wang, Thomas J. , Limburg, Paul J. , Hittelman, Walter N. , MacAulay, Calum E. , Jerónimo, José , Richards‐Kortum, Rebecca , Johnson, Karen A. , Klein, Eric A

Cancer Biomarkers | January 31, 2017 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 1-33

10.3233/cbm-2007-3101 Get It