Schwartz, Lawrence H.

PURPOSE The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

PURPOSE Patients with advanced, well-differentiated extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (epNETs) have limited systemic treatment options. Pazopanib, an oral multikinase inhibitor with activity against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2 and -3, PDGFR-alpha and-beta, and c-Kit, was tested for efficacy in epNET. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study of pazopanib (800 mg once daily) versus placebo in low- to intermediate-grade epNET with radiologic progressive disease (PD) within 12 months of study entry. Previous somatostatin analog (SSA) was required for midgut tumors, and concurrent SSA was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Unblinding and crossover were allowed if PD was confirmed by central review. RESULTS One hundred seventy-one patients (97 pazopanib and 74 placebo) were randomly assigned between September 2013 and October 2015. The majority had a midgut primary site (75%) and previous SSA treatment (93%). About half (49%) of the patients had functional tumors. The median follow-up was 61 months (95% CI, 60 to 63). Median PFS was 11.8 versus 7.6 months in pazopanib versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79]; P < .001); 49 placebo patients crossed over to pazopanib. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. Rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events (regardless of attribution) were higher in pazopanib versus placebo (84% v 47%; P < .001), as were grade 5 death events (8% v 0%, P = .017). CONCLUSION Pazopanib compared with placebo significantly improves PFS in patients with progressive epNET, confirming that the VEGF signaling pathway is a valid target for therapy in epNET. However, after integrating the associated risks relative to the benefits, further development of pazopanib in this clinical context is not planned.

TPS589 Background: In patients (pts) with metastatic unresectable urothelial cancer, platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard of care for first-line treatment followed by switch maintenance avelumab if disease control is achieved with chemotherapy. Outside of this setting, single agent immunotherapy is often used in pts that have recurrence after platinum-based chemotherapy or are platinum ineligible. Atezolizumab is a PD-L1 inhibitor currently approved for pts that have urothelial cancers expressing positive PD-L1 or pts ineligible for receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Tumor-targeted radiotherapy can generate immune-stimulating effects without immune suppression as was previously thought. Moreover, it has become clear that radiotherapy can induce profound effects on tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment that can enhance or trigger an anticancer immune response. While numerous trials have investigated the abscopal effect, this trial will have specific parameters regarding drug type, radiation dose and administration. Methods: A032002 is a phase 2 trial addressing pts that are platinum ineligible or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. 144 pts will be randomized to receive either atezolizumab or atezolizumab and single site radiation therapy. The atezolizumab regimen is 1200 mg every 3 weeks. Administration of radiotherapy will occur to one non-target site (8 Gy x 3) for pts randomized to the atezolizumab + radiotherapy arm. All pts will undergo centralized PD-L1 testing (SP142 monoclonal primary antibody), which can be performed on archival tissue; a new biopsy is only required if no archival tissue is available. Key eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 years, ECOG performance status 0-2, histologically confirmed metastatic urothelial cancer, having at least one measurable site per RECIST 1.1 to monitor for abscopal response, one site targetable for radiation, and tissue available for PD-L1 testing. The primary endpoint is tumor response within 6 months of randomization. Tumor response is defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) as assessed by the treating physician using RECIST 1.1 criteria. For a one-sided log rank test with a type 1 error rateof 0.10, the study has 90% power to detect a 20% increase in response rate. Key secondary endpoints include tumor response using iRECIST, progression-free survival and overall survival. Quality of life assessments include EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BLM30 and PROMIS-Fatigue. Tissue, urine and blood samples will be collected and biobanked for future correlative science. Enrollment to ART began in December 2021. The study is available for participation at all US NCTN sites with a projected enrollment of 3 years. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Clinical trial information: NCT04936230 .

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.

377 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy has been associated with a median overall survival (OS) of 18 – 23 months (mo) in patients (pts) with BR pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To establish reference regimens to which novel treatments can be compared in future studies, we evaluated neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX with or without RT in BR PDAC in a phase II National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trial. Methods: Pts with ECOG PS 0-1 and BR PDAC confirmed by central real-time radiographic review after pre-registration were randomized to either arm A: 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours), or arm B: 7 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX followed by stereotactic body RT (SBRT, 33-40 Gy in 5 fractions [fx]) or hypofractionated image guided RT (HIGRT, 25 Gy in 5 fx). Pts in either arm without disease progression underwent pancreatectomy, then 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours). The primary endpoint, 18-mo OS rate, of each arm was compared to a historical control of 50%. Planned interim analysis mandated closure of either arm in which <11 of first 30 accrued pts underwent R0 resection. Results: 155 pts pre-registered and 126 pts were enrolled to arm A (N=70; 54 randomized, 16 following closure of arm B) or arm B (N=56; closed at interim analysis, all pts randomized prior to closure). Median age (A: 63y, B: 67y), median CA 19-9 level (A: 171 U/ml, B: 248 U/ml) and ECOG PS (A: 51% PS 0, B: 57% PS 0) of registered pts were similar between arms (p > 0.05). Treatment detailed in Table. The 18-mo OS rate based on Kaplan Meier estimates was 67.9% (95%CI: 54.6 – 78.0) in arm A and 47.3% (95%CI: 33.7 – 59.7) in arm B. Among pts who underwent pancreatectomy, 18-mo OS rate was 93.1% (95%CI: 84.3 – 100) and 78.9% (95%CI: 62.6 – 99.6) in arm A and B, respectively. With median follow-up of 27 and 31 mo, median OS was 31.0 (95%CI: 22.2 – NE) mo and 17.1 (95%CI: 12.8 – 24.4) mo in arm A and B, respectively. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX was associated with favorable OS relative to historical data in pts with BL PDAC in this phase II NCTN trial. mFOLFIRINOX with hypofractionated RT did not improve OS compared to historical data. mFOLFIRINOX represents a reference regimen in this setting and a backbone on which to add novel agents. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT02839343. [Table: see text]

361 Background: Assessment of tumor response in extrapancreatic NETs with metastases can be very challenging. Previous studies suggest a high degree of discordance between local and central imaging reviews, which has implications for clinical practice and trial design. Methods: Serial images archived from a randomized phase II trial (A021202) of pazopanib vs placebo in progressive non-pancreatic NETs were evaluated by central review, with real-time review conducted at the time of locally interpreted progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Discordances between central (Alliance Imaging Core Laboratory) and local (investigator-reported) reviews were assessed. Scan-level and pt-level results across both treatment arms were evaluated. Kappa tests were used to test concordance based on source of review. Results: 151 pts had a total of 724 scans with response adjudication by both local and central RECIST review. Discordance was observed in both directions. Overall, 20% of scans (143/724) had discordant classifications. The most common discordances were: stable disease (SD) on local vs. PD on central review (82/143=57%), and PD on local vs. SD on central review (32/143=22%). On a pt level, 78 of 151 pts (52%) had discordant reviews; 8 had >1 type of discordance. Overall, 30% of pts (N=45) had a determination of PD on central review, but SD or better on local review, potentially resulting in excessive exposure to therapy. In contrast, 20% (N=30) were classified as PD on local read but SD or better on real-time central review (which did not necessarily translate into an abbreviated course of treatment). Cohen’s kappa statistics revealed only moderate concordance between local and central reviewers both at the scan (K=0.48, 95% CI: 0.42 – 0.55) and pt (K=0.41, 95% CI: 0.32 – 0.5) levels, with no significant influence by treatment arm, primary tumor site, tumor functionality, histology, differentiation or primary disease spread. Conclusions: Discordance was observed in both directions, where 30% of pts were potentially kept on study drug too long (based on central read), and 20% would have been taken off study treatment early for local PD were it not for real-time central review. Although this bidirectional discordance did not affect the overall findings of the PFS outcome between arms in the trial, these analyses highlight the high prevalence of discordance, the potential to negatively influence treatment duration in both directions, and the need for more straightforward methods of assessing treatment response in carcinoid. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; NETRF Investigator Award; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT01841736.

343 Background: Alliance/CALGB 80802, a randomized phase III trial, evaluated sorafenib plus doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin in pts with HCC and showed no improvement in median overall survival (OS) (HR[95CI] 1.05[0.83-1.31]) or PFS (HR[95CI] 0.93[0.75-1.16]). In HCC surrogacy of tumor response with OS remains controversial, in part due to varying criteria used for response evaluation (e.g., RECIST1.1 and mRECIST). We evaluated the performance of several models to predict OS using pretreatment clinical and radiomic variables. Methods: In CALBG 80802, we segmented all measurable tumor lesions on sequential CT scans. A lesion’s imaging phenotype was deciphered with 23 uncorrelated quantitative imaging features measured at baseline and week (wk) 10 (first follow-up). An OS landmark survival analysis was conducted at wk 10. Patients were randomly assigned (3:1) to training (n = 92) and validation (n = 37) sets. In a training set, 6 random forest predictive models (6 signatures) used features that best predicted OS using 3 sets of variables: radiomics only (n = 23), clinical only (n = 9), radiomics and clinical (n = 32). Two time points (baseline only or baseline + wk 10) were assessed. Each signature's output was an individualized prediction and a continuous value ranging from 0 to 1 (from most to least favorable predicted OS). The primary endpoint was to compare these models' performance to predict OS using error rate (Harrell's concordance-index) in the validation set. Results: Of the 6 training signatures evaluated, the one achieving the highest performance in the validation set was an 8-feature signature combining radiomics and clinical variables measured at two time points (baseline + wk 10) with an error rate of 35.6%. The variables [rank of importance] (table) selected by the signature included baseline clinical features (albumin[1], AFP[2], Child-Pugh[4]), baseline radiomics features (component 17[3], component 1[5], component 9[7], tumor volume[8]) and wk 10 radiomics features (delta tumor volume[6]). Variable delta tumor volume [6] used a more enhanced estimation of tumor burden at baseline and a delta tumor volumetric measurement; compared to RECIST1.1 measurement of percentage change in unidimensional measurement of a subset of target lesions. The four quartiles of the signature were significantly associated with OS (Log-Rank, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The selected combined radiomic and clinical composite signature provided the best prediction for OS in the 80802 study patients’ population. It is a suggested way forward to go beyond single anatomic measurement techniques such as RECIST or mRECIST. [Table: see text]

325 Background: Alliance/CALGB 80802 randomized phase III trial evaluated DO+S vs. S in pts with aHCC, and showed no improvement in median OS. Multi-drug resistant pathway mitigation by the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway and bFGF-mediated activation of Raf-1 promotes the formation of antiapoptotic Raf-1 and ASK1 complex, induced by anthracyclines. S efficiently blocks NS5A-recruited c-Raf mediated HCV replication and viral gene expression. Once inhibited by S, VEGF expression of HepG2 may limit HCV cellular entry. Release of Raf-1-Ask-1 dimer and inhibition of Raf-1 via S putatively differ in the presence or absence of DO. We hypothesize treatment with S reduces HCV titer levels (TL) and influence pts’ outcome. Methods: In 80802 HCV pts, TL were evaluated in both arms at baseline and post-baseline at Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, and every 2 cycles and at progression or discontinuation of therapy. HCV undetectable (HCV-UN) levels were defined as < 50 copies/mL. TL were evaluated in relation to OS and PFS. HCV RNA levels were measured by TaqMan PCR and by genotype. Results: Of 356 pts, 83 were HCV+ with more Black/African American (25/50 = 50%) vs. White (54/239 = 23%) or other race groups (4/67 = 6%) (p < 0.0001). HCV titer data were available on 54 pts (S: 28, DO+S: 26). At baseline, 12 pts (S: 7, DO+S: 5) were HCV-UN, and post-baseline HCV TL did not significantly differ between treatment arms; one patient in each arm went from detectable (HCV-D) to HCV-UN. Post-baseline, 40 pts were HCV-D vs. 14 who were HCV-UN (S+DO: 8, S: 6 pts). Except for the two pts who became HCV-UN, baseline HCV-D vs. HCV-UN titers was similar to that status post-baseline. PFS and OS between HCV-D and HCV-UN both at baseline and post-baseline are delineated in the table. Conclusions: We observed that S did not influence HCV TL. Pts treated with DO+S vs. S had worse PFS if they had HCV-UN, and further that higher levels of HCV titers at baseline were associated with significantly improved PFS. Given the small sample size, these findings warrant further prospective evaluation. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Bayer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Sanofi. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01015833. [Table: see text]

Background FDG-PET is used in staging and response assessments in patients (pts) with DLBCL. An analysis of 158 pts with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP or DA-EPOCH-R on CALGB/Alliance 50303 failed to show an association between the interim PET (iPET, after cycle 2 of therapy) visual 5-point scale score (5-PS) by central review and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), but did show a significant association between percent change in FDG uptake from baseline to after cycle 2 (∆SUV) and PFS/OS (Schoder et al. 2020). As central review of FDG-PET is not feasible in routine practice, we retrospectively compared local vs central readings, and determined associations from local imaging data with PFS/OS. Methods 126 pts at baseline and 109 at iPET had local imaging data submitted across 21 institutions. Visual scores 1-3 defined PET- and scores 4-5 defined PET+ disease. ∆SUV was defined as the percent change in the maximum SUV at any site (maxSUV) from baseline to iPET. Continuous ∆SUV and categorized ∆SUV (&lt;66% vs &gt;66%) were analyzed. Differences in quantitative measures were calculated as the local minus central result. The Kappa statistic estimated agreement in PET and ∆SUV groups between local and central review. PFS and OS distributions for local PET and ∆SUV groups were landmarked at iPET, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared using the log-rank test. Results At baseline, maxSUV was reported locally and centrally in 118 pts. Median maxSUV was 24.3 (range: 5.9-77.3) by local review and 24.3 (range: 5.9-77.0) by central review. The median difference in maxSUV was 0 (range: -12.9 to 21.9), with 50% of differences between -1.1 and 0.1, and 90% of differences between -7.8 and 4.1. In 106 pts with visual iPET 5-PS results, 52 (49.1%) were PET+ by local review and 37 (34.9%) by central review. Agreement in local and central review was moderate (kappa=0.53), occurring in 81 pts (76.4%; 32 PET+ and 49 PET-). Disagreement occurred in 25 patients, 20 with local PET+ but central PET- and 5 with local PET- but central PET+. iPET maxSUV was reported locally and centrally in 90 pts. Median maxSUV was 3.4 (range: 0-18.3) by local review and 3.3 (range: 1.2-18.2) by central review. The median difference in maxSUV was 0 (range: -8.6 to 2.4), with 50% of differences between -0.3 and 0.4, and 90% of differences between -4.4 and 1.8. ∆SUV was calculated in 87 pts. Median ∆SUV was 84.6% (range: -3.0% to 95.9%) by local review and 85.1% (range: -34.9% to 95.8%) by central review. The median difference in ∆SUV was -0.3 (range: -19.6 to 31.9), with 50% of differences between -2.1 and 1.1, and 90% of differences between -7.1 and 12.3. ∆SUV was &lt;66% in 12 (13.8%) pts by local review and 12 pts by central review. Agreement in local and central review was high (kappa=0.81), occurring in 83 pts (95.4%; 10 with ∆SUV &lt;66%, 73 with ∆SUV &gt;66%). Disagreement occurred in 4 pts, 2 in each direction. Using local data, PFS and OS estimates were numerically lower in pts with iPET+ vs iPET- disease, but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.12 and p=0.15). Two-year estimates for PFS were 79% (95% CI 68-91%) and 89% (95% CI 81-98%), and 2-year estimates for OS were 84% (95% CI 75-95%) and 96% (95% CI 91-100%) in pts with iPET+ and iPET-, respectively. In contrast, ∆SUV groups were significantly associated with PFS and OS (p=0.03 and p=0.002). Two-year estimates for PFS were 56% (95% CI 34-94%) and 87% (95% CI 79-95%) and 2-year estimates for OS were 56% (95% CI 34-94%) and 93% (95% CI 88-99%) in pts with ∆SUV &lt;66% and ∆SUV &gt;66%, respectively. Conclusion Agreement in visual 5-PS at iPET was moderate; most discrepancies arose from a local PET+ result when central review called PET-. Differences in maxSUV and ∆SUV tended to be small. Grouping ∆SUV resulted in only 4 discrepancies (4.6%). Similar to the previous analysis using central data, the separation in PFS and OS curves using local data for ∆SUV was greater than by visual 5-PS. Encouragingly, the agreement in ∆SUV of &lt;66% vs ≥66% was high between local and central review. Overall agreement however may be unduly influenced by the large proportion of pts with ∆SUV ≥66%, with less certainty in agreement for pts with ∆SUV &lt;66%. Larger prospective studies comparing local and central imaging data are warranted to best determine the utility of local imaging in clinical trials. Support: P30 CA008748, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00118209 (CALGB 50303) Disclosures Kahl: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Friedberg:Astellas: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Leonard:MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; GenMab: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding.

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.