Literature DB >> 15471829

18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter.

Alexander M Spence1, Mark Muzi, David A Mankoff, S Finbarr O'Sullivan, Jeanne M Link, Thomas K Lewellen, Barbara Lewellen, Pam Pham, Satoshi Minoshima, Kristin Swanson, Kenneth A Krohn.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We hypothesized that delineation of gliomas from gray matter with 18F-FDG PET could be improved by extending the interval between 18F-FDG administration and PET data acquisition. The purposes of this study were, first, to analyze standard and delayed 18F-FDG PET images visually and quantitatively to determine whether definition of tumor improved at later imaging times and, second, to investigate the dynamics of model-derived kinetic rate constants, particularly k4.
METHODS: Nineteen adult patients with supratentorial gliomas were imaged from 0 to 90 min and once or twice later at 180-480 min after injection. In 15 patients, arterial sampling provided the early input function. Venous sampling provided the remaining curve to the end of the imaging sequence. Standardized uptake value (SUV) was calculated as tissue concentration of tracer per injected tracer dose per body weight. Ratios of tumor SUV relative to the SUV of gray matter, brain (including gray and white matter), or white matter were calculated at each imaging time point. Dynamic image data from tumor, gray matter, brain, or white matter were analyzed using a 2-compartment, 4-parameter model applied for the entire duration of imaging, in which delay, K1, distribution volume, k3, and k4 were optimized using a nonlinear optimization method. Parameter estimation for each region included both an early subset of data from a conventional dynamic imaging period (0-60 min) and the full, extended dataset for each region.
RESULTS: In 12 of the 19 patients, visual analysis showed that the delayed images better distinguished the high uptake in tumors relative to uptake in gray matter. SUV comparisons also showed greater uptake in the tumors than in gray matter, brain, or white matter at the delayed times. The estimated k4 values for tumors were not significantly different from those for gray matter in early imaging analysis but were lower (P < 0.01) using the extended-time data.
CONCLUSION: The kinetic parameter results confirm the visual and SUV interpretation that tumor enhancement is greater than enhancement of surrounding brain regions at later imaging times, consistent with a greater effect of FDG-6-phosphate degradation on normal brain relative to glioma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15471829

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  53 in total

1.  Independent prognostic value of pre-treatment 18-FDG-PET in high-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Cécile Colavolpe; Philippe Metellus; Julien Mancini; Maryline Barrie; Céline Béquet-Boucard; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Olivier Mundler; Olivier Chinot; Eric Guedj
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Comparison of F-18 FET-PET with F-18 FDG-PET for biopsy planning of non-contrast-enhancing gliomas.

Authors:  Michail Plotkin; C Blechschmidt; G Auf; F Nyuyki; L Geworski; T Denecke; W Brenner; F Stockhammer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Multimodality Brain Tumor Imaging: MR Imaging, PET, and PET/MR Imaging.

Authors:  James R Fink; Mark Muzi; Melinda Peck; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  18F-FDG-PET/CT Imaging to Diagnose Septic Emboli and Mycotic Aneurysms in Patients with Endocarditis and Cardiac Device Infections.

Authors:  Nidaa Mikail; Khadija Benali; Besma Mahida; Jonathan Vigne; Fabien Hyafil; François Rouzet; Dominique Le Guludec
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  A plea for the elective inclusion of the brain in routine whole-body FDG PET.

Authors:  Tarik Belhocine; Stefan Markus Weiner; Ingo Brink; Peter Paul De Deyn; Jan Roland; Thierry Van der Borght; Patrick Flamen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Delayed [(18)F]FDG PET imaging of central nervous system lymphoma: is PET better than MRI?

Authors:  Christian Jeanguillaume; Gilles Metrard; Hervé Rakotonirina; Olivier Morel; Cécile Berthelot; Tanguy Blaire; Francis Bouchet; Sylvie Giraud; Franck Lacoeuille; Aurélie Cahouet; Malgorzata Truchan-Graczyk; Charles Foussard; Jean Jacques Lejeune
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07-19       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: opportunities and limitations.

Authors:  Christian la Fougère; Bogdana Suchorska; Peter Bartenstein; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Jörg-Christian Tonn
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  Partial volume correction of standardized uptake values and the dual time point in FDG-PET imaging: should these be routinely employed in assessing patients with cancer?

Authors:  Sandip Basu; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  PET imaging in pediatric neuroradiology: current and future applications.

Authors:  Sunhee Kim; Noriko Salamon; Hollie A Jackson; Stefan Blüml; Ashok Panigrahy
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2009-11-24

Review 10.  Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Oncology.

Authors:  Andrea Gallamini; Colette Zwarthoed; Anna Borra
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.