Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Computed Tomography | Original research

Relationship between tumor mutational burden and maximum standardized uptake value in 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET (positron emission tomography) scan in cancer patients

Authors: Amin Haghighat Jahromi, Donald A. Barkauskas, Matthew Zabel, Aaron M. Goodman, Garret Frampton, Mina Nikanjam, Carl K. Hoh, Razelle Kurzrock

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Purpose

Deriving links between imaging and genomic markers is an evolving field. 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT (¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography) is commonly used for cancer imaging, with maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) as the main quantitative parameter. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), the quantitative variable obtained using next-generation sequencing on a tissue biopsy sample, is a putative immunotherapy response predictor. We report the relationship between TMB and SUV_max, linking these two important parameters.

Methods

In this pilot study, we analyzed 1923 patients with diverse cancers and available TMB values. Overall, 273 patients met our eligibility criteria in that they had no systemic treatment prior to imaging/biopsy, and also had 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT within 6 months prior to the tissue biopsy, to ensure acceptable temporal correlation between imaging and genomic evaluation.

Results

We found a linear correlation between TMB and SUV_max (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, only TMB independently correlated with SUV_max, whereas age, gender, and tumor organ did not.

Conclusion

Our observations link SUV_max in readily available, routinely used, and noninvasive 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT imaging to the TMB, which requires a tissue biopsy and time to process. Since higher TMB has been implicated as a prognostic biomarker for better outcomes after immunotherapy, further investigation will be needed to determine if SUV_max can stratify patient response to immunotherapy.

Jansen RW, van Amstel P, Martens RM, Kooi IE, Wesseling P, de Langen AJ, et al. Non-invasive tumor genotyping using radiogenomic biomarkers, a systematic review and oncology-wide pathway analysis. Oncotarget. 2018;9:20134–55. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24893.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, Adler AS, Gollub J, Chen X, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:675–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1306.CrossRefPubMed

Diehn M, Nardini C, Wang DS, McGovern S, Jayaraman M, Liang Y, et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:5213–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801279105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moon SH, Kim J, Joung JG, Cha H, Park WY, Ahn JS, et al. Correlations between metabolic texture features, genetic heterogeneity, and mutation burden in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:446–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4138-5.CrossRefPubMed

Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480–508. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.047787.CrossRefPubMed

Lodge MA. Repeatability of SUV in oncologic. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:523–32. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.186353.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMed

Ahn KS, Kang KJ, Kim YH, Kim TS, Song BI, Kim HW, et al. Genetic features associated with ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2019;96:153–61. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2019.96.4.153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chan TA, Yarchoan M, Jaffee E, Swanton C, Quezada SA, Stenzinger A, et al. Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: utility for the oncology clinic. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:44–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy495.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, Kvistborg P, Makarov V, Havel JJ, et al. Cancer immunology mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science. 2015;348:124–212. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1348.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Snyder A, Makarov V, Merghoub T, Yuan J, Zaretsky JM, Desrichard A, et al. Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2189–99. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1406498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Goodman AM, Kato S, Bazhenova L, Patel SP, Frampton GM, Miller V, et al. Tumor mutational burden as an independent predictor of response to immunotherapy in diverse cancers. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16:2598–608. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0386.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Goodman AM, Kato S, Chattopadhyay R, Okamura R, Saunders IM, Montesion M, et al. Phenotypic and genomic determinants of immunotherapy response associated with squamousness. Cancer Immunol Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0716.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Maleki VS. High and low mutational burden tumors versus immunologically hot and cold tumors and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0479-7.CrossRef

15.

Na KJ, Choi H. Tumor metabolic features identified by ¹⁸F-FDG PET correlate with gene networks of immune cell microenvironment in head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:31–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.194217.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Park C, Na KJ, Choi H, Ock CY, Ha S, Kim M, et al. Tumor immune profiles noninvasively estimated by FDG PET with deep learning correlate with immunotherapy response in lung adenocarcinoma. Theranostics. 2020;10:10838–48. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.50283.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Togo M, Yokobori T, Shimizu K, Handa T, Kaira K, Sano T, et al. Diagnostic value of 18 F-FDG-PET to predict the tumour immune status defined by tumoural PD-L1 and CD8 + tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2020;122:1686–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0820-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Choi H, Na KJ. Pan-cancer analysis of tumor metabolic landscape associated with genomic alterations. Mol Cancer. 2018;17:150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-018-0895-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Zikou A, Sioka C, Alexiou GA, Fotopoulos A, Voulgaris S, Argyropoulou MI. Radiation necrosis, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, and tumor recurrence: imaging challenges for the evaluation of treated gliomas. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:6828396. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6828396.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Mouw KW, Goldberg MS, Konstantinopoulos PA, D’Andrea AD. DNA damage and repair biomarkers of immunotherapy response. Cancer Discov. 2017;7:675–93. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0226.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Otto G. Kidney cancer: PBRM1 loss promotes tumour response to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15:134–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.12.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Boichard A, Pham TV, Yeerna H, Goodman A, Tamayo P, Lippman S, et al. APOBEC-related mutagenesis and neo-peptide hydrophobicity: implications for response to immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology. 2019;8:1550341. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2018.1550341.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Chalmers ZR, Connelly CF, Fabrizio D, Gay L, Ali SM, Ennis R, et al. Analysis of 100,000 human cancer genomes reveals the landscape of tumor mutational burden. Genome Med. 2017;9:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0424-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge DC, Aparicio SA, Behjati S, Biankin AV, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature. 2013;500:415–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12477.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Goodman A, Patel SP, Kurzrock R. PD-1-PD-L1 immune-checkpoint blockade in B-cell lymphomas. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14:203–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.168.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Samstein RM, Lee CH, Shoushtari AN, Hellmann MD, Shen R, Janjigian YY, et al. Tumor mutational load predicts survival after immunotherapy across multiple cancer types. Nat Genet. 2019;51:202–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0312-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu TE, Pluzanski A, Lee JS, Otterson GA, Audigier-Valette C, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2093–104. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801946.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Aide N, Hicks RJ, Le Tourneau C, Lheureux S, Fanti S, Lopci E. FDG PET/CT for assessing tumour response to immunotherapy : Report on the EANM symposium on immune modulation and recent review of the literature. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:238–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4171-4.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Chang GH, Kurzrock R, Tran L, Schwaederle M, Hoh CK. mutations and number of alterations correlate with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Oncotarget. 2018;9:14306–10. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24508.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Haghighat Jahromi A, Chang C, Hoh CK, Kurzrock R. Standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT is correlated with the total number of main oncogenic anomalies in cancer patients. Cancer Biol Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15384047.2020.1834793.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Kim SK, Ahn SG, Mun JY, Jeong MS, Bae SJ, Lee JS, et al. Genomic signature of the standardized uptake value in ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12020497.CrossRefPubMedCentral

32.

Frampton GM, Fichtenholtz A, Otto GA, Wang K, Downing SR, He J, et al. Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:1023–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2696.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Relationship between tumor mutational burden and maximum standardized uptake value in 2-[18F]FDG PET (positron emission tomography) scan in cancer patients
Authors: Amin Haghighat Jahromi
Donald A. Barkauskas
Matthew Zabel
Aaron M. Goodman
Garret Frampton
Mina Nikanjam
Carl K. Hoh
Razelle Kurzrock
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-020-00732-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Relationship between tumor mutational burden and maximum standardized uptake value in 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET (positron emission tomography) scan in cancer patients

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

In vivo absolute quantification of striatal and extrastriatal D2/3 receptors with [123I]epidepride SPECT

Voxel-based comparison of [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET/CT and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT with histopathology for diagnosis of primary prostate cancer

Predictive value of quantitative 18F-FDG-PET radiomics analysis in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Kinetic analysis of HER2-binding ABY-025 Affibody molecule using dynamic PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Synthesis of a novel 89Zr-labeled HER2 affibody and its application study in tumor PET imaging

Added value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and a previous 99mTc bone scintigraphy