PURPOSE: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) of paclitaxel is a new locoregional approach for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) in monitoring the effects of this type of direct drug delivery. METHODS: Eight patients with recurrent glioblastoma underwent CED of paclitaxel, which was infused over stereotactically placed catheters into the tumour. FET PET and MRI were performed before and 4 weeks after therapy and then at 3-month intervals to document follow-up. For quantitative evaluation, SUV(max)(tumour)/SUV(mean)(background) ratios were calculated. RESULTS: At baseline all tumours showed gadolinium enhancement and high FET uptake (SUV(max)/BG 3.2+/-0.8). Four weeks after CED, a statistically significant decrease in FET uptake was seen (SUV(max)/BG-17%; p<0.01). During follow-up, no recurrence was observed within the CED area. Two out of eight patients with extended tumours died 4 and 5 months after treatment, most probably from local complications. Temporarily stable disease with stable FET uptake was observed in six of eight patients; this was followed by progression and increasing FET uptake ratios (+46%) distant from the CED area in five of the six patients 3-13 months after CED. One patient still presents stable FET uptake 10 months after CED. MRI showed unchanged/increasing contrast enhancement and oedema without ability to reliably assess disease progression. CONCLUSION: FET PET is a valuable tool in monitoring the effects of CED of paclitaxel. In long-term follow-up, stable or decreasing FET uptake, even in contrast-enhancing lesions, is suggestive of reactive changes, whereas increasing ratios appear always to be indicative of recurrence. Therefore, FET PET is more reliable than MRI in differentiating stable disease from tumour regrowth.
PURPOSE: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) of paclitaxel is a new locoregional approach for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) in monitoring the effects of this type of direct drug delivery. METHODS: Eight patients with recurrent glioblastoma underwent CED of paclitaxel, which was infused over stereotactically placed catheters into the tumour. FET PET and MRI were performed before and 4 weeks after therapy and then at 3-month intervals to document follow-up. For quantitative evaluation, SUV(max)(tumour)/SUV(mean)(background) ratios were calculated. RESULTS: At baseline all tumours showed gadolinium enhancement and high FET uptake (SUV(max)/BG 3.2+/-0.8). Four weeks after CED, a statistically significant decrease in FET uptake was seen (SUV(max)/BG-17%; p<0.01). During follow-up, no recurrence was observed within the CED area. Two out of eight patients with extended tumours died 4 and 5 months after treatment, most probably from local complications. Temporarily stable disease with stable FET uptake was observed in six of eight patients; this was followed by progression and increasing FET uptake ratios (+46%) distant from the CED area in five of the six patients 3-13 months after CED. One patient still presents stable FET uptake 10 months after CED. MRI showed unchanged/increasing contrast enhancement and oedema without ability to reliably assess disease progression. CONCLUSION: FET PET is a valuable tool in monitoring the effects of CED of paclitaxel. In long-term follow-up, stable or decreasing FET uptake, even in contrast-enhancing lesions, is suggestive of reactive changes, whereas increasing ratios appear always to be indicative of recurrence. Therefore, FET PET is more reliable than MRI in differentiating stable disease from tumour regrowth.
Authors: Juergen Voges; Regina Reszka; Axel Gossmann; Claus Dittmar; Raphaela Richter; Guido Garlip; Lutz Kracht; Heinz H Coenen; Volker Sturm; Karl Wienhard; Wolf-Dieter Heiss; Andreas H Jacobs Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Roy A Patchell; William F Regine; Paul Ashton; Phillip A Tibbs; Diane Wilson; Diana Shappley; Byron Young Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: R H Bobo; D W Laske; A Akbasak; P F Morrison; R L Dedrick; E H Oldfield Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-03-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J N Bruce; A Falavigna; J P Johnson; J S Hall; B D Birch; J T Yoon; E X Wu; R L Fine; A T Parsa Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: K A Walter; M A Cahan; A Gur; B Tyler; J Hilton; O M Colvin; P C Burger; A Domb; H Brem Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1994-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jiangbing Zhou; Kofi-Buaku Atsina; Benjamin T Himes; Garth W Strohbehn; W Mark Saltzman Journal: Cancer J Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Vera Graute; Lena Armbruster; Bogdana Suchorska; Juergen Lutz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gabriele Pöpperl; Friedrich W Kreth; Jan H Mehrkens; Jochen Herms; Klaus Seelos; Walter Koch; Franz J Gildehaus; Hans A Kretzschmar; Jörg C Tonn; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Richard C E Anderson; Benjamin Kennedy; Candix L Yanes; James Garvin; Michael Needle; Peter Canoll; Neil A Feldstein; Jeffrey N Bruce Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 2.375