Download PDF
TumorDiagnostik & Therapie 2018; 39(02): 100-104
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-100835
Schwerpunkt Melanome
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Imaging-Biomarker beim malignen Melanom

Markus Essler
,
Florian Gärtner
,
Ralph Bundschuh
,
Brigitte Hinterthaner
,
Jennifer Landsberg
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Imaging-Biomarker erlauben neben der molekularen Charakterisierung von Tumoren und der Stratifizierung von Patienten die räumliche Zuordnung molekularer Prozesse. Der wichtigste etablierte und durch molekulare Bildgebung visualisierbare Biomarker des Melanoms ist der Glukosestoffwechsel.
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Reinhardt MJ, Joe AY, Jaeger U. et al. Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for N- and M-staging of malignant melanoma: Experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1178-1187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Subesinghe M, Marples M, Scarsbrook AF. et al. Clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT in recurrent stage III/IV melanoma: A tertiary centre Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (SSMDT) experience. Insights Imaging 2013; 4: 701-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Danielsen M, Kjaer A, Wu M. et al. Prediction of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) positivity in patients with high-risk primary melanoma. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 6: 277-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Essler M, Link A, Belloni B. et al. Prognostic value of [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-glucose PET/CT, S100 or MIA for assessment of cancer-associated mortality in patients with high risk melanoma. PLoS One 2011; 6: e24632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zukotynski K, Yap JT, Giobbie-Hurder A. et al. Metabolic response by FDG-PET to imatinib correlates with exon 11 KIT mutation and predicts outcome in patients with mucosal melanoma. Cancer Imaging 2014; 14: 30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schmitt RJ, Kreidler SM, Glueck DH. et al. Correlation between early 18F-FDG PET/CT response to BRAF and MEK inhibition and survival in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Nucl Med Commun 2016; 37: 122-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Puzanov I, McArthur G, Gonzalez R. et al. Updated results and correlative FDG-PET analysis of a phase IB study of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (MEK inhibitor [GDC-0973]), in advanced BRAFV600- mutated melanoma (BRIM7). J Transl Med 2014; 12: O7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 van der Hiel B, Haanen JBAG, Stokkel MPM. et al. Vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma: Response monitoring and resistance prediction with positron emission tomography and tumor characteristics (REPOSIT): Study protocol of a phase II, open-label, multicenter study. BMC Cancer 2017; 17: 649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shah DJ, Dronca RS. Latest advances in chemotherapeutic, targeted, and immune approaches in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Mayo Clin Proc 2014; 89: 504-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R. et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 908-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Robert C, Long GV, Brady B. et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 320-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sachpekidis C, Larribere L, Pan L. et al. Predictive value of early 18F-FDG PET/CT studies for treatment response evaluation to ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma: preliminary results of an ongoing study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 386-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Herbst RS, Soria JC, Kowanetz M. et al. Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients. Nature 2014; 515: 563-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Taube JM, Klein A, Brahmer JR. et al. Association of PD-1, PD-1 ligands, and other features of the tumor immune microenvironment with response to anti-PD-1 therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 5064-5074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Topalian SL, Taube JM, Anders RA. et al. Mechanism-driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2016; 16: 275-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Higashikawa K, Yagi K, Watanabe K. et al. 64Cu-DOTA-anti-CTLA-4 mAb enabled PET visualization of CTLA-4 on the T-cell infiltrating tumor tissues. PLoS One 2014; 9: e109866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Natarajan A, Mayer AT, Xu L. et al. Novel Radiotracer for ImmunoPET Imaging of PD-1 Checkpoint Expression on Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes. Bioconjug Chem 2015; 26: 2062-2069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hettich M, Braun F, Bartholomä MD. et al. High-resolution PET imaging with therapeutic antibody-based PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint tracers. Theranostics 2016; 6: 1629-1640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rossi S, Toschi L, Castello A. et al. Clinical characteristics of patient selection and imaging predictors of outcome in solid tumors treated with checkpoint-inhibitors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44: 1-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar