Challenges in developing response evaluation criteria for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: A consensus report from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Advisory Board Meeting 2022 and the ENETS Theranostics Task Force

Abstract Assessing the response to systemic therapy in neuroendocrine tumors (NET) is challenging since morphological imaging response is often delayed and not necessarily reflective of clinical benefit. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has a complex mechanism of action, further complicating response assessment. In response to these challenges, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Theranostics Task Force conducted a statement‐based survey among experts to identify the current landscape and unmet needs in PRRT response assessment. The survey, presented at the 2022 ENETS Advisory Board (AB) meeting in Vienna, was completed by 70% of AB members, most of whom (81%) were from ENETS Centers of Excellence (CoE). It comprised a set of 13 questions with two substatements in three questions. Six (46%) of the statements achieved more than 75% agreement, while five (39%) additional statements reached over 60% consensus. Key points from the survey include: AB members agreed that lesions deemed equivocal on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be characterized by somatostatin receptor (SST) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT before being designated as target lesions. It was agreed that interim response assessments should occur after the second or third PRRT cycle. Over half (54%) preferred using both conventional cross‐sectional imaging (CT and/or MRI) and hybrid imaging (SST PET/CT) for this purpose. Almost all AB members supported further response assessment 3 months after the final PRRT cycle. A majority (62%) preferred using a combination of conventional cross‐sectional imaging and SST PET/CT. For cases showing equivocal progression (ambiguous lesions or nontarget lesions) on CT and/or MRI, further confirmation using SST PET/CT was recommended. A significant majority (74%) preferred assessing pseudo‐progression and delayed response by combining SST PET with diagnostic CT and/ or MRI. Though just below the 75% consensus threshold, there was substantial agreement on selecting target lesions based on SST PET/CT uptake intensity and homogeneity. Sixty‐nine percent noted the importance of documenting and closely following heterogeneity in lesions in liver, lymph nodes, primary tumors, or other organs. As to the statement on parameters for new response criteria, AB members recommended exploring maximum standard unit value, tumor‐to‐background ratio, Hounsfield Unit (Choi Criteria), total tumor burden, and novel serum or molecular markers for future response evaluation criteria. Sixty‐five percent supported the use of a single SST PET/CT for response assessment of NET lesions treated with PRRT. These findings highlight the importance of integrating advanced imaging techniques and recognizing the need for more nuanced criteria in assessing the efficacy of PRRT in NET patients. This approach aims to enhance the accuracy of treatment monitoring and improve patient outcomes.