Exploratory study finds pre-treatment brain patterns correlate with treatment efficacy in cancer, suggesting potential biomarkers.
Objective. To determine whether pre-treatment brain metabolic network patterns measured with 18 F-FDG PET are associated with treatment response and survival in cancer patients. Approach. Exploratory retrospective study of two independent cohorts: stage III breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and stage IV melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. Metabolic brain network scores were derived from pre-treatment 18 F-FDG PET scans and evaluated for their ability to stratify good versus poor responders using ROC analysis (AUC). Longitudinal changes in network scores were assessed across follow-up, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses were performed in the melanoma cohort. Main results. Specific brain networks were associated with treatment outcome; the cognition/language network was the strongest predictor (AUC > 0.84 for distinguishing good vs. poor responders in both cohorts). Good responders showed lower cognition/language scores than poor responders and healthy controls. Longitudinally, cognition/language scores remained stable in good responders, while poor responders exhibited a gradual convergence toward the scores observed in good responders. In the melanoma cohort, lower cognition/language scores were significantly associated with longer PFS and OS. Significance. These findings indicate that metabolic brain network patterns, particularly the cognition/language network, may serve as noninvasive biomarkers linked to treatment efficacy and survival in oncology. The results support a possible complex interaction between brain metabolism, immune response, and clinical outcomes. Key limitations include the retrospective design and lack of direct immune-function and psychometric measures; prospective, multimodal studies are needed to validate these observations and elucidate underlying mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Namías et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: