Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32206839›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2020

Prognostic 18F-FDG PET biomarkers in metastatic mucosal and cutaneous melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4.

Romain-David Seban, Antoine Moya-Plana, Lara Antonios, Randy Yeh, Aurélien Marabelle, Eric Deutsch, Lawrence H Schwartz, Ruth Gabriela Herrera Gómez, Yvonne Saenger, Caroline Robert and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of [European radiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. The value ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  4. Beyond target lesions: Prognostic value of longitudinal AI-derived whole-body [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  5. Multicenter evaluation of commercial AI for [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Prognostic value of TMTV and Dmax calculated fromEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. The Prognostic Value of Biomarkers Identified by [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. [Molecular imaging and biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Predictive value of [European radiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 3'-deoxy-3'-EJNMMI research · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Precision Oncology in Melanoma: Changing Practices.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review on radiomic analysis inCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Romain-David SebanDépartement of Medical Imaging, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, F-94805, Villejuif, France.
Antoine Moya-PlanaInserm U981, Melanoma Group, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France.
Lara AntoniosDépartement of Medical Imaging, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, F-94805, Villejuif, France.
Randy YehDepartment of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, 168th Street, New York, NY, 10039, USA.
Aurélien MarabelleDrug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Eric DeutschDrug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Lawrence H SchwartzDepartment of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, 168th Street, New York, NY, 10039, USA.
Ruth Gabriela Herrera GómezDépartement d'oncologie CHUV-UNIL, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, VD, CH, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6778-7704
Yvonne SaengerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Caroline RobertInserm U981, Melanoma Group, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France.
Samy AmmariDépartement of Medical Imaging, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, F-94805, Villejuif, France.
Laurent DercleDepartment of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, 168th Street, New York, NY, 10039, USA. ld2752@cumc.columbia.edu.
Université Paris-Saclay · FRNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USInserm · FRUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the prognostic value of imaging biomarkers derived from a quantitative analysis of baseline 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with mucosal melanoma (Muc-M) or cutaneous melanoma (Cut-M) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

methodsIn this retrospective monocentric study, we included 56 patients with non-resectable Muc-M (n = 24) or Cut-M (n = 32) who underwent baseline 18F-FDG-PET/CT before treatment with ICIs between 2011 and 2017. Parameters were extracted from (i) tumoral tissues: SUVmax, SUVmean, TMTV (total metabolic tumor volume), and TLG (total lesion glycolysis) and (ii) lymphoid tissues: BLR (bone marrow-to-liver SUVmax ratio) and SLR (spleen-to-liver SUVmax ratio). Association with survival and response was evaluated using Cox prediction models, Student's t tests, and Spearman's correlation respectively. p < 0.05 was considered significant.

resultsMajority of ICIs were anti-PD1 (92.9%, n = 52/56). All 18F-FDG-PET/CT were positive. Overall (Muc-M to Cut-M), ORR was 33%:42%, DCR was 56%:69%, median follow-up was 25.0:28.9 months, median PFS was 4.7:10.7 months, and median OS was 23.9:28.3 months. In Muc-M, increased tumor SUVmax was associated with shorter OS while it was not correlated with PFS, ORR, or DCR. In Cut-M, increased TMTV and increased BLR were independently associated with shorter OS, shorter PFS, and lower response (ORR, DCR).

conclusionWhile all Muc-M and Cut-M were FDG avid, prognostic imaging biomarkers differed. For Muc-M patients treated with ICI, the only prognostic imaging biomarker was a high baseline maximal glycolytic activity (SUVmax), whereas for Cut-M patients, baseline metabolic tumor burden or bone marrow metabolism was negatively correlated to ICI response duration.

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsCTLA-4 AntigenFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorRetrospective StudiesTumor BurdenCTLA-4 AntigenFluorodeoxyglucose F18Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorBiomarkersImmunotherapyMelanomaPositron emission tomography computed tomographyPrognosisProgrammed cell death 1 receptor

Identifiers

PMID32206839
OpenAlexW3012796117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.