BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of [11C] methionine (MET) and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in the follow-up of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After surgical and/or conservative treatment, 28 patients (pts) with GBM underwent FDG and MET PET on average 12.7 months after the diagnosis had been established. Scans were evaluated visually and by calculating the maximal tumor SUV as well as the ratio of tumor vs. contralateral region (RTu). The degree of tracer uptake was compared with survival time, disease duration and MRI findings. RESULTS: The mean overall duration of survival was 12.7 months. The patients were divided into two groups: those that survived less than 12 months and those that survived longer than 12 months. Focally increased uptake was revealed by MET PET in 24 patients and by FDG PET in 2 patients. On MRI scans, viable tumor tissue was suspected in 18 patients. No correlations were registered between FDG/MET uptake and survival time or disease duration respectively; Kaplan-Meier calculations were negative in this regard. Similarly, negative results were obtained in subgroups of patients who had undergone microsurgical resection and whose disease was at least of 6 months' duration, and additionally in a subgroup who had undergone their last treatment longer than 6 months ago. With respect to survival groups, a positive MET PET was associated with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 8%. SUV and RTu values did not differ between patients with positive or negative MRI results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study FDG PET seems to be of limited value in the work-up of recurrent GBM because of its lower sensitivity than MET PET and the fact that it allows no prediction of the outcome. MET PET visualizes viable tumor tissue without adding any prognostic information and appears to be in no way superior to conventional imaging.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of [11C] methionine (MET) and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in the follow-up of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After surgical and/or conservative treatment, 28 patients (pts) with GBM underwent FDG and MET PET on average 12.7 months after the diagnosis had been established. Scans were evaluated visually and by calculating the maximal tumor SUV as well as the ratio of tumor vs. contralateral region (RTu). The degree of tracer uptake was compared with survival time, disease duration and MRI findings. RESULTS: The mean overall duration of survival was 12.7 months. The patients were divided into two groups: those that survived less than 12 months and those that survived longer than 12 months. Focally increased uptake was revealed by MET PET in 24 patients and by FDG PET in 2 patients. On MRI scans, viable tumor tissue was suspected in 18 patients. No correlations were registered between FDG/MET uptake and survival time or disease duration respectively; Kaplan-Meier calculations were negative in this regard. Similarly, negative results were obtained in subgroups of patients who had undergone microsurgical resection and whose disease was at least of 6 months' duration, and additionally in a subgroup who had undergone their last treatment longer than 6 months ago. With respect to survival groups, a positive MET PET was associated with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 8%. SUV and RTu values did not differ between patients with positive or negative MRI results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study FDG PET seems to be of limited value in the work-up of recurrent GBM because of its lower sensitivity than MET PET and the fact that it allows no prediction of the outcome. MET PET visualizes viable tumor tissue without adding any prognostic information and appears to be in no way superior to conventional imaging.
Authors: M Lacroix; D Abi-Said; D R Fourney; Z L Gokaslan; W Shi; F DeMonte; F F Lang; I E McCutcheon; S J Hassenbusch; E Holland; K Hess; C Michael; D Miller; R Sawaya Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Lutz W Kracht; Hrvoje Miletic; Susanne Busch; Andreas H Jacobs; Jurgen Voges; Moritz Hoevels; Johannes C Klein; Karl Herholz; Wolf-D Heiss Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: G Di Chiro; R L DeLaPaz; R A Brooks; L Sokoloff; P L Kornblith; B H Smith; N J Patronas; C V Kufta; R M Kessler; G S Johnston; R G Manning; A P Wolf Journal: Neurology Date: 1982-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Georg Widhalm; Georgi Minchev; Adelheid Woehrer; Matthias Preusser; Barbara Kiesel; Julia Furtner; Aygül Mert; Antonio Di Ieva; Boguslaw Tomanek; Daniela Prayer; Christine Marosi; Johannes A Hainfellner; Engelbert Knosp; Stefan Wolfsberger Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: George A Alexiou; Spyridon Tsiouris; Athanasios P Kyritsis; Konstantinos S Polyzoidis; Andreas D Fotopoulos Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2007-07-17 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Timothy Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Kelsey L Pomykala; Matthias R Benz; Andreas K Buck; Michael E Phelps; Wei Chen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert Pichler; Andreas Dunzinger; Gabriele Wurm; Josef Pichler; Serge Weis; Karin Nussbaumer; Raffi Topakian; Reingard M Aigner Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Roelien H Enting; Mart A A M Heesters; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Ronald W J van Rheenen; Annemiek M E Walenkamp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David O Kamson; Sandeep Mittal; Natasha L Robinette; Otto Muzik; William J Kupsky; Geoffrey R Barger; Csaba Juhász Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 12.300