% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Sachpekidis:136038,
      author       = {C. Sachpekidis$^*$ and H. N. M. A. Anwar$^*$ and J. Winkler
                      and A. Kopp-Schneider$^*$ and L. Larribere$^*$ and U.
                      Haberkorn$^*$ and J. C. Hassel and A.
                      Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss$^*$},
      title        = {{T}he role of interim 18{F}-{FDG} {PET}/{CT} in prediction
                      of response to ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma.},
      journal      = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
      volume       = {45},
      number       = {8},
      issn         = {1619-7089},
      address      = {Heidelberg [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer-Verl.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2018-00737},
      pages        = {1289 - 1296},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {The aim of the present study was to assess the value of
                      interim 18F-FDG PET/CT performed after the first two cycles
                      of ipilimumab treatment in the prediction of the final
                      clinical response to this type of immunotherapy.The study
                      group comprised 41 patients with unresectable metastatic
                      melanoma scheduled for ipilimumab therapy. Whole-body
                      18F-FDG PET/CT was performed before the start of ipilimumab
                      treatment (baseline PET/CT) and after the initial two cycles
                      of ipilimumab treatment (interim PET/CT). Evaluation of
                      patient response to treatment was based on the European
                      Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)
                      1999 criteria for PET as well as the recently proposed PET
                      Response Evaluation Criteria for Immunotherapy (PERCIMT).
                      The patients' best clinical response, assessed at a median
                      of 21.4 months (range 6.3-41.9 months) was used as
                      reference.According to their best clinical response, the
                      patients were divided into two groups: those showing
                      clinical benefit (CB) including stable disease, partial
                      response and complete response (31 patients), and those
                      showing no clinical benefit (no-CB including progressive
                      disease (10 patients). According to the EORTC criteria,
                      interim PET/CT demonstrated progressive metabolic disease
                      (PMD) in 20 patients, stable metabolic disease (SMD) in 11
                      patients, partial metabolic response (PMR) in 8 patients,
                      and complete metabolic response (CMR) in 2 patients.
                      According to the PERCIMT, interim PET/CT demonstrated PMD in
                      9 patients, SMD in 24 patients, PMR in 6 patients and CMR in
                      2 patients. On the basis of the interim PET, the patients
                      were divided in a similar manner to the division according
                      to clinical response into those showing metabolic benefit
                      (MB) including SMD, PMR and CMR, and those showing no
                      metabolic benefit (no-MB) including PMD. According to this
                      dichotomization, the EORTC criteria showed a sensitivity
                      (correctly predicting CB) of $64.5\%,$ a specificity
                      (correctly predicting no-CB) of $90.0\%,$ a positive
                      predictive value (PPV) of $95.2\%,$ a negative predictive
                      value (NPV) of $45.0\%$ and an accuracy of $70.7\%$ in
                      predicting best clinical response. The PERCIMT showed a
                      sensitivity of $93.6\%,$ a specificity of $70.0\%,$ a PPV of
                      $90.6\%,$ a NPV of $77.8\%$ and an accuracy of $87.8\%.$ The
                      McNemar test showed that the PERCIMT had a significantly
                      higher sensitivity than EORTC criteria (p = 0.004),
                      while there was no significant difference in specificity
                      (p = 0.5). The agreement between the two sets of
                      criteria was poor (McNemar test p = 0.001, and
                      accordingly kappa = 0.46).The application of the
                      recently proposed PERCIMT to interim 18F-FDG PET/CT provides
                      a more sensitive predictor of final clinical response to
                      immunotherapy than the application of the EORTC criteria in
                      patients with metastatic melanoma.},
      cin          = {E060 / C060 / G300},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E060-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)G300-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:29478079},
      doi          = {10.1007/s00259-018-3972-9},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/136038},
}