iPREDICT: Phase II study of CD8 PET in patients with immunoresponsive solid tumors—Imaging characteristics and correlation with RECIST response.

K Kim Allyson Margolin (St. John's Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, CA) K Kristin Schmiedehausen (ImaginAb, Calabasas, CA) Y Yulia Gavrilov (Bioforum Group, Central District, Israel) D David Hays (CARTI, Little Rock, AR) E Erik Aarntzen (Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands) J Jeffrey Y.C. Wong (City of Hope National Cancer Center, Duarte, CA) R Rachel Pearson (Northern Centre for Cancer Care (NCCC), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom) D Delphine L. Chen (Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA) A Andrew Mark Scott (Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia) H Harm Westdorp (Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands) S Sumanta Kumar Pal (Department of Medical Oncology City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center Duarte California USA) E Evan Hall (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA) M Michael Ferris (ImaginAb, Calabasas, CA) W William Le (ImaginAb, Calabasas, CA) I Ian Wilson A Anna M. Wu (City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA)

Abstract

3069 Background: CD8 T cells mediate antitumor effects of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB); their histologically-determined abundance prior to or during therapy (Rx) appears to correlate with ICB response in melanoma (MEL) and other solid tumors. We performed this Phase IIb study to assess CD8 targeted PET imaging with 89 Zr-crefmirlimab berdoxam prior to and during ICB Rx to study its potential as a marker for Rx selection, enhancement or even replacement of existing tumor measurement systems, and correlation of clinical outcomes. Methods: 70 patients (pts) with MEL or Merkel cell cancer (MCC) (27), renal cell cancer (RCC) (35) or lung cancer (NSCLC) (8) who were eligible for first or second-line single- or double-agent ICB or ICB plus an oral kinase inhibitor (TKI) were enrolled. 89 Zr-crefmirlimab berdoxam (1 mCi,1.5 mg protein), was administered intravenously ≤2 weeks prior to cycle 1 of ICB Rx, followed by a PET/CT scan 24 (+/-3) hours later (baseline, BL). The 2nd tracer injection and associated PET/CT scan occurred 4-6 weeks after ICB Rx initiation, prior to cycle 3 (on treatment, OT). Standard of Care imaging and RECIST 1.1 were used to assess response to Rx. Results: All 70 pts were evaluable for safety analysis; none experienced an SAE related to imaging agent. 65 pts (21 MEL, 2 MCC, 34 RCC and 8 NSCLC) were included in the primary endpoint analysis of correlating CD8 PET scans with best confirmed overall response (BOR) by RECIST 1.1. MEL and MCC pts received single (6/23) or double ICB (17/23), RCC pts received single ICB with/without TKI (21/34) or dual ICB (13/34), and all NSLCL pts received single ICB. In the RCC cohort, multiple CD8 PET metrics showed statistically significant association with either individual BOR or Binary Response at BL, OT or as delta, including: Tumor Standard Uptake Value (SUV), Lymph Node (LN) SUV, relative percentage of CD8 negative or positive lesions and normal organ SUV. Normalization to reference organs improved the correlation with BOR for the combined cohorts and for the MEL/MCC cohort. Depending on clinical objectives, different classification rules to predict BOR were applied, prioritizing specificity for non-responders and sensitivity for responders (Table). These results were cohort-dependent, as each cohort exhibited a distinct distribution of SUVs. Conclusions: PET imaging can quantitate CD8 T cells with sufficient specificity and sensitivity to support further study in selection of pts for Rx regimens and assessing early response to therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT05013099 . Prediction of BOR by CD8 PET. Cohort Response Parameter Timepoint AUC 95% CI Sensitivity Specificity MEL + MCC CR+PR vs SD+PD Spleen SUVmean BL 0.67 0.44,0.90 87.5 60.0 MEL + MCC CR+PR vs SD+PD Tumor SUVmax normal. to thyroid Delta 0.70 0.46, 0.95 85.7 64.3 RCC CR+PR vs SD+PD Hottest LN SUVmax OT 0.84 0.65, 1.00 71.4 90.9 RCC CR vs PR+SD+PD % CD8 negative lesions Delta 0.96 0.87, 1.00 100.0 92.3

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 3069-3069
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (16)

K

Kim Allyson Margolin

St. John's Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, CA

K

Kristin Schmiedehausen

ImaginAb, Calabasas, CA

Y

Yulia Gavrilov

Bioforum Group, Central District, Israel

D

David Hays

CARTI, Little Rock, AR

E

Erik Aarntzen

Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

J

Jeffrey Y.C. Wong

City of Hope National Cancer Center, Duarte, CA

R

Rachel Pearson

Northern Centre for Cancer Care (NCCC), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom

D

Delphine L. Chen

Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA

A

Andrew Mark Scott

Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia

H

Harm Westdorp

Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands

S

Sumanta Kumar Pal

Department of Medical Oncology City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center Duarte California USA

E

Evan Hall

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA

M

Michael Ferris

ImaginAb, Calabasas, CA

W

William Le

ImaginAb, Calabasas, CA

I

Ian Wilson

A

Anna M. Wu

City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA