PURPOSE: Treatment and prognosis of gliomas depend on their histological tumour grade. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential of [(18)F]fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) PET for non-invasive tumour grading in untreated patients. METHODS: Dynamic FET PET studies were performed in 54 patients who, based on MRI, were estimated to have low grade (LG; n = 20), intermediate (WHO II-III; n = 4) or high grade (HG; n = 30) tumours. For standard evaluation, tumour SUV(max) and the ratio to background (SUV(max)/BG) were calculated (sum image: 20-40 min). For dynamic evaluation, mean SUV values within a 90% isocontour ROI (SUV90) and the SUV90/BG ratios were determined for each time frame to evaluate the course of FET uptake. Results were correlated with histopathological findings from PET-guided stereotactic biopsies. RESULTS: Histology revealed gliomas in all patients. Using the standard method a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) was found between LG (n = 20; SUV(max)/BG: 2.16 +/- 0.98) and HG (n = 34; SUV(max)/BG: 3.29 +/- 1.06) gliomas (opt. threshold 2.58: SN71%/SP85%/area under ROC curve [AUC]:0.798), however, with a marked overlap between WHO II to IV tumours. Time activity curves showed slight increase in LG, whereas HG tumours presented with an early peak (10-20 min) followed by a decrease. Dynamic evaluation successfully separated LG from HG gliomas with higher diagnostic accuracy (SN94%/SP100%/AUC:0.967). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ratio-based method, a statistically significant difference was found between LG and HG gliomas. Due to the interindividual variability, however, no reliable individual grading was possible. In contrast, dynamic evaluation allowed LG and HG gliomas to be differentiated with high diagnostic power and, thus, should supplement the conventional method.
PURPOSE: Treatment and prognosis of gliomas depend on their histological tumour grade. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential of [(18)F]fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) PET for non-invasive tumour grading in untreated patients. METHODS: Dynamic FET PET studies were performed in 54 patients who, based on MRI, were estimated to have low grade (LG; n = 20), intermediate (WHO II-III; n = 4) or high grade (HG; n = 30) tumours. For standard evaluation, tumour SUV(max) and the ratio to background (SUV(max)/BG) were calculated (sum image: 20-40 min). For dynamic evaluation, mean SUV values within a 90% isocontour ROI (SUV90) and the SUV90/BG ratios were determined for each time frame to evaluate the course of FET uptake. Results were correlated with histopathological findings from PET-guided stereotactic biopsies. RESULTS: Histology revealed gliomas in all patients. Using the standard method a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) was found between LG (n = 20; SUV(max)/BG: 2.16 +/- 0.98) and HG (n = 34; SUV(max)/BG: 3.29 +/- 1.06) gliomas (opt. threshold 2.58: SN71%/SP85%/area under ROC curve [AUC]:0.798), however, with a marked overlap between WHO II to IV tumours. Time activity curves showed slight increase in LG, whereas HG tumours presented with an early peak (10-20 min) followed by a decrease. Dynamic evaluation successfully separated LG from HG gliomas with higher diagnostic accuracy (SN94%/SP100%/AUC:0.967). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ratio-based method, a statistically significant difference was found between LG and HG gliomas. Due to the interindividual variability, however, no reliable individual grading was possible. In contrast, dynamic evaluation allowed LG and HG gliomas to be differentiated with high diagnostic power and, thus, should supplement the conventional method.
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 Pöpperl; R Goldbrunner; F J Gildehaus; F W Kreth; P Tanner; M Holtmannspötter; J C Tonn; K Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-05-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Benoit Pirotte; Serge Goldman; Nicolas Massager; Philippe David; David Wikler; Maurice Lipszyc; Isabelle Salmon; Jacques Brotchi; Marc Levivier Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Katrin Haegler; Martin Wiesmann; Christian Böhm; Jessica Freiherr; Oliver Schnell; Hartmut Brückmann; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Jennifer Linn Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 2.804
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: Mark Rickhey; Zdenek Morávek; Christoph Eilles; Oliver Koelbl; Ludwig Bogner Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Isabel Winkelmann; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Erik Mille; Andrei Todica; Matthias Brendel; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Peter Bartenstein; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Johannes Schwarzenberg; Johannes Czernin; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson; Whitney B Pope; Tristan Grogan; David Elashoff; Cheri Geist; Daniel H S Silverman; Michael E Phelps; Wei Chen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Manuel Röhrich; Kristin Huang; Daniel Schrimpf; Nathalie L Albert; Thomas Hielscher; Andreas von Deimling; Ulrich Schüller; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Christoph Schwartz; Vera Graute; Sabina Eigenbrod; Jürgen Lutz; Rupert Egensperger; Gabriele Pöpperl; Hans A Kretzschmar; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère; Niklas Thon Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 12.300