CNS Tumors: PET/CT and MRI for Response Assessment of CNS Tumors Following Immunotherapy

  • Egesta Lopci
  • Angelo Castello


Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has determined a big impact on patient management in the last decade, leading to unpreceded durable responses to treatment. The peculiarities of the CNS and its supposed “isolation” from the immune system have limited for long time the implementation of these immunotherapeutic agents in patients with primary brain tumors or brain metastases. Recent discoveries and the promising preclinical findings in glioblastoma have encouraged the research and implemented the use of checkpoint inhibitors, vaccines, and other immune-modulating drugs in clinical trials. New therapeutic regimens are frequently followed by the requirement of new criteria for response assessment. The iRANO (Immunotherapy RANO) criteria have been introduced consequently, although challenges in differentiating progression from pseudoprogression persist. Metabolic response with PET can provide useful information in this context and help perform a proper response assessment. In the following sessions, some examples of primary and metastatic brain tumors treated with immunotherapy are shown together with corresponding morphological and metabolic imaging findings.


Malignant glioma Brain tumors Metastases Immunotherapy Vaccines Response assessment 


  1. 1.
    Barker CF, Billingham RE. Immunologically privileged sites. Adv Immunol. 1977;25:1–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simonelli M, Persico P, Perrino M, Zucali PA, Navarria P, Pessina F, Scorsetti M, Bello L, Santoro A. Checkpoint inhibitors as treatment for malignant gliomas: “a long way to the top”. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018;69:121–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamath SD, Kumthekar PU. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) metastatic disease. Front Oncol. 2018;8:414. eCollection 2018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGranahan T, Therkelsen KE, Ahmad S, Nagpal S. Current state of immunotherapy for treatment of glioblastoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2019;20(3):24. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel AP, Tirosh I, Trombetta JJ, et al. Single-cell RNAseq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science (New York, NY). 2014;344:1396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cristescu R, Mogg R, Ayers M, et al. Pan-tumor genomic biomarkers for PD-1 checkpoint blockade-based immunotherapy. Science (New York, NY). 2018;362.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thorsson V, Gibbs DL, Brown SD, Wolf D, Bortone DS, Ou Yang TH, et al. The immune landscape of cancer. Immunity. 2018;48:812–30.e14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carson MJ, Doose JM, Melchior B, Schmid CD, Ploix CC. CNS immune privilege: hiding in plain sight. Immunol Rev. 2006;213:48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Louveau A, Smirnov I, Keyes TJ, Eccles JD, Rouhani SJ, Peske JD, et al. Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Nature. 2015;523(7560):337–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGranahan T, Li G, Nagpal S. History and current state of immunotherapy in glioma and brain metastasis. Ther Adva Med Oncol. 2017;9:347–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caccese M, Indraccolo S, Zagonel V, Lombardi G. PD-1/PD-L1 immune-checkpoint inhibitors in glioblastoma: a concise review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;135:128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weber JS, D’Angelo SP, Minor D, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(4):375–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(1):23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(19):1803–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fecci PE, Ochiai H, Mitchell DA, et al. Systemic CTLA-4 blockade ameliorates glioma-induced changes to the CD4+ T cell compartment without affecting regulatory T-cell function. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:2158–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeng J, See AP, Phallen J, Jackson CM, Belcaid Z, Ruzevick J, et al. Anti-PD-1 blockade and stereotactic radiation produce long-term survival in mice with intracranial gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(2):343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wainwright DA, Chang AL, Dey M, Balyasnikova IV, Kim CK, Tobias A, et al. Durable therapeutic efficacy utilizing combinatorial blockade against IDO, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 in mice with brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:5290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reardon DA, Gokhale PC, Klein SR, et al. Glioblastoma Eradication Following Immune Checkpoint Blockade in an Orthotopic, Immunocompetent Model. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4:124–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim JE, Patel MA, Mangraviti A, et al. Combination Therapy with Anti-PD-1, Anti-TIM-3, and Focal Radiation Results in Regression of Murine Gliomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(1):124–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berghoff AS, Kiesel B, Widhalm G, et al. Programmed death ligand 1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(8):1064–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nduom EK, Wei J, Yaghi NK, et al. PD-L1 expression and prognostic impact in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(2):195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reardon D, Omuro A, Brandes A, et al. OS10.3 randomized phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab vs bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: CheckMate 143. Pheonix: Society for Neuro Oncology; 2017.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Omuro A, Vlahovic G, Lim M, et al. Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: results from exploratory phase I cohorts of CheckMate 143. Neuro-Oncology. 2018;20:674–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reiss SN, Yerram P, Modelevsky L, Grommes C. Retrospective review of safety and efficacy of programmed cell death-1 inhibitors in refractory high grade gliomas. J Immunother Cancer. 2017;5:99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prins RMA, Orpilla J, Lee A, et al. Neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 immunotherapy promotes intratumoral and systemic immune responses in recurrent glioblastoma: an Ivy Consortium trial. New Orleans: Society for Neuro Oncology; 2018.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van den Bent M, Wefel J, Schiff D, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diff use low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e270–e78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):e534–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Albert NL, Weller M, Suchorska B, et al. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group and European Association for Neuro-Oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(9):1199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Law I, Albert NL, Arbizu J, et al. Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [18F]FDG: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(3):540–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egesta Lopci
    • 1
  • Angelo Castello
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear MedicineHumanitas Clinical and Research Hospital - IRCCSRozzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations