PurposeGallium-68 (Ga-68)-labeled tracers for imaging expression of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) such as the [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC have already demonstrated high potential for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer. However, compared to Ga-68, a labeling with fluorine-18 (F-18) would offer advantages with respect to availability, production amount, and image resolution. [18F]DCFPyL is a promising F-18-labeled candidate for PSMA-positron emission tomography (PET) imaging that has been recently introduced. In the current study, we aimed to compare [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC and [18F]DCFPyL for clinical use in biochemically relapsed prostate cancer.ProceduresIn 14 selected patients with PSA relapse of prostate cancer, [18F]DCFPyL PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) was performed in addition to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT. A systematic comparison was carried out between results obtained with both tracers with regard to the number of detected PSMA-positive lesions, the standardized uptake value (SUV)max and the lesion to background ratios.ResultsAll suspicious lesions identified by [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC were also detected with [18F]DCFPyL. In three patients, additional lesions were observed using [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT. The mean SUVmax in the concordant [18F]DCFPyL PSMA-positive lesions was significantly higher as compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC (14.5 vs. 12.2, p = 0.028, n = 15). The mean tumor to background ratios (n = 15) were significantly higher for [18F]DCFPyL compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC using kidney, spleen, or parotid as reference organs (p = 0.006, p = 0.002, p = 0.008), but no significant differences were found using the liver (p = 0.167) or the mediastinum (p = 0.363) as reference organs.Conclusion[18F]DCFPyL PET/CT provided a high image quality and visualized small prostate lesions with excellent sensitivity. [18F]DCFPyL represents a highly promising alternative to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET/CT imaging in relapsed prostate cancer.

No abstract

(50%), with an overall disease control rate of 61.5%. AFM13 was also active in brentuximab vedotin-refractory patients. In 13 patients who received doses of ‡1.5 mg/kg AFM13, the overall response rate was 23% and the disease control rate was 77%. AFM13 treatment resulted in a significant NK-cell activation and a decrease of soluble CD30 in peripheral blood. In conclusion, AFM13 represents a welltolerated, safe, and active targeted immunotherapy of Hodgkin lymphoma. A phase 2 study is currently planned to optimize the dosing schedule in order to further improve the therapeutic efficacy. This phase 1 study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01221571. (Blood. 2015;125(26):4024-4031)

PURPOSE Combined-modality treatment (CMT) with 2× ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) and small-field radiotherapy is standard of care for patients with early-stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, the role of radiotherapy has been challenged. Positron emission tomography (PET) after 2× ABVD (PET-2) might help to predict individual outcomes and guide treatment. METHODS Between November 2009 and December 2015, we recruited patients age 18 to 75 years with newly diagnosed, early-stage favorable HL for this international randomized phase III trial. Patients were assigned to standard CMT of 2× ABVD and 20-Gy involved-field radiotherapy or PET-guided treatment, omitting involved-field radiotherapy after negative PET-2 (Deauville score < 3). Primary objectives were to exclude inferiority of 10% or more in 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) of ABVD alone compared with CMT in a per-protocol analysis among PET-2–negative patients (noninferiority margin for hazard ratio, 3.01) and to confirm PET-2 positivity (Deauville score ≥ 3) as a risk factor for PFS among CMT-treated patients. RESULTS We enrolled 1,150 patients. Median follow-up was 45 months. Among 628 PET-2–negative, per-protocol–treated patients, 5-year PFS was 93.4% (95% CI, 90.4% to 96.5%) with CMT and 86.1% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.9%) with ABVD (difference 7.3% [95% CI, 1.6% to 13.0%]; hazard ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.02 to 3.12]). Five-year overall survival was 98.1% (95% CI, 96.5% to 99.8%) with CMT and 98.4% (95% CI, 96.5% to 100.0%) with ABVD. Among 693 patients who were assigned to CMT, 5-year PFS was 93.2% (95% CI, 90.2% to 96.2%) among PET-2–negative patients and 88.4% (95% CI, 84.2% to 92.6%) in PET-2–positive patients ( P = .047). When using the more common liver cutoff (Deauville score, 4) for PET-2 positivity, the difference was more pronounced (5-year PFS, 93.1% [95% CI, 90.7% to 95.5%] v 80.9% [95% CI, 72.2% to 89.7%]; P = .0011). CONCLUSION In early-stage favorable HL, a positive PET after two cycles ABVD indicates a high risk for treatment failure, particularly when a Deauville score of 4 is used as a cutoff for positivity. In PET-2–negative patients, radiotherapy cannot be omitted from CMT without clinically relevant loss of tumor control.

No abstract