OBJECTIVES: Radioactive amino-acids accumulate in gliomas even with an intact blood-brain-barrier. L-3-[(123)I]-iodo-alpha-methyl-tyrosine (IMT) is well established for SPECT imaging of gliomas. Recently, we introduced p-[(123)I]-iodo-L-phenylalanine (IPA) for the characterisation of brain lesions. This study compares both tracers in glioma patients. METHODS: Eleven patients with gliomas (1 WHO grade 1, 5 grade 2, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 4 gliomas, 1 unconfirmed upgrading and 1 post-therapeutic non-neoplastic lesion) underwent SPECT imaging with IPA (early and delayed acquisitions at 30 min and 3 h) and IMT (early only). Maximum tumour-to-brain ratios (TBR) were calculated using region-of-interest analysis to assess uptake of IMT and IPA. Imaging results were compared to histopathological findings. RESULTS: Early TBRs of IMT and IPA were strongly correlated (r = 0.828, p = 0.002). TBRs were higher for IMT than IPA (1.95+/-0.50 versus 1.79+/-0.42; p < 0.05), but independent from tumour cell density (p > 0.1). Visual interpretation by different observers was more concordant for IMT-SPECT than IPA-SPECT (kappa 1.0 versus 0.774). No differences in early TBRs were observed between low-grade and high-grade gliomas for IMT (1.97+/-0.53 versus 2.21+/-0.44, p > 0.5) or IPA (1.70+/-0.23 versus 2.21+/-0.56, p = 0.167) with a trend to higher TBRs in low-grade tumours for IMT (p = 0.093). In contrast to the known wash-out of IMT, we observed persistent accumulation of IPA in gliomas. CONCLUSIONS: IPA shows lower TBRs than IMT, especially in low-grade tumours, so IMT should be preferred for the delineation of low-grade gliomas by SPECT imaging. Due to its prolonged retention, however, IPA remains promising for therapeutic use in gliomas after labelling with I-131.
OBJECTIVES:Radioactive amino-acids accumulate in gliomas even with an intact blood-brain-barrier. L-3-[(123)I]-iodo-alpha-methyl-tyrosine (IMT) is well established for SPECT imaging of gliomas. Recently, we introduced p-[(123)I]-iodo-L-phenylalanine (IPA) for the characterisation of brain lesions. This study compares both tracers in gliomapatients. METHODS: Eleven patients with gliomas (1 WHO grade 1, 5 grade 2, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 4 gliomas, 1 unconfirmed upgrading and 1 post-therapeutic non-neoplastic lesion) underwent SPECT imaging with IPA (early and delayed acquisitions at 30 min and 3 h) and IMT (early only). Maximum tumour-to-brain ratios (TBR) were calculated using region-of-interest analysis to assess uptake of IMT and IPA. Imaging results were compared to histopathological findings. RESULTS: Early TBRs of IMT and IPA were strongly correlated (r = 0.828, p = 0.002). TBRs were higher for IMT than IPA (1.95+/-0.50 versus 1.79+/-0.42; p < 0.05), but independent from tumour cell density (p > 0.1). Visual interpretation by different observers was more concordant for IMT-SPECT than IPA-SPECT (kappa 1.0 versus 0.774). No differences in early TBRs were observed between low-grade and high-grade gliomas for IMT (1.97+/-0.53 versus 2.21+/-0.44, p > 0.5) or IPA (1.70+/-0.23 versus 2.21+/-0.56, p = 0.167) with a trend to higher TBRs in low-grade tumours for IMT (p = 0.093). In contrast to the known wash-out of IMT, we observed persistent accumulation of IPA in gliomas. CONCLUSIONS:IPA shows lower TBRs than IMT, especially in low-grade tumours, so IMT should be preferred for the delineation of low-grade gliomas by SPECT imaging. Due to its prolonged retention, however, IPA remains promising for therapeutic use in gliomas after labelling with I-131.
Authors: T Vander Borght; S Asenbaum; P Bartenstein; C Halldin; O Kapucu; K Van Laere; A Varrone; K Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: T Kuwert; S Probst-Cousin; B Woesler; C Morgenroth; H Lerch; P Matheja; S Palkovic; M Schäfers; H Wassmann; F Gullotta; O Schober Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Samuel Samnick; Jochen B Bader; Dirk Hellwig; Jean Richard Moringlane; Christof Alexander; Bernd F M Romeike; Wolfgang Feiden; Carl-Martin Kirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W A Weber; S Dick; G Reidl; B Dzewas; R Busch; H J Feldmann; M Molls; C B Lumenta; M Schwaiger; A L Grosu Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dirk Hellwig; Ralf Ketter; Bernd F M Romeike; Andrea Schaefer; Georgios Farmakis; Aleksandar Grgic; Jean R Moringlane; Wolf-Ingo Steudel; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Samuel Samnick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jennifer L Burkemper; Chaofeng Huang; Aixiao Li; Liya Yuan; Keith Rich; Jonathan McConathy; Suzanne E Lapi Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Eva Rainer; Hao Wang; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Georg Widhalm; Barbara Fueger; Jingling Chang; Zhaohui Zhu; Christine Marosi; Alexander Haug; Marcus Hacker; Shuren Li Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 9.236