PURPOSE: To determine whether increased uptake on 11C-methionine-PET (MET-PET) imaging obtained before radiation therapy and temozolomide is associated with the site of subsequent failure in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS: Patients with primary GBM were treated on a prospective trial with dose- escalated radiation and concurrent temozolomide. As part of the study, MET-PET was obtained before treatment but was not used for target volume definition. Using automated image registration, we assessed whether the area of increased MET-PET activity (PET gross target volume [GTV]) was fully encompassed within the high-dose region and compared the patterns of failure for those with and without adequate high-dose coverage of the PET-GTV. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were evaluated with a median follow-up of 15 months. Nineteen of 26 had appreciable (>1 cm(3)) volumes of increased MET-PET activity before treatment. Five of 19 patients had PET-GTV that was not fully encompassed within the high-dose region, and all five patients had noncentral failures. Among the 14 patients with adequately covered PET-GTV, only two had noncentral treatment failures. Three of 14 patients had no evidence of recurrence more than 1 year after radiation therapy. Inadequate PET-GTV coverage was associated with increased risk of noncentral failures. (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment MET-PET appears to identify areas at highest risk for recurrence for patients with GBM. It would be reasonable to test a strategy of incorporating MET-PET into radiation treatment planning, particularly for identifying areas for conformal boost.
PURPOSE: To determine whether increased uptake on 11C-methionine-PET (MET-PET) imaging obtained before radiation therapy and temozolomide is associated with the site of subsequent failure in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS:Patients with primary GBM were treated on a prospective trial with dose- escalated radiation and concurrent temozolomide. As part of the study, MET-PET was obtained before treatment but was not used for target volume definition. Using automated image registration, we assessed whether the area of increased MET-PET activity (PET gross target volume [GTV]) was fully encompassed within the high-dose region and compared the patterns of failure for those with and without adequate high-dose coverage of the PET-GTV. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were evaluated with a median follow-up of 15 months. Nineteen of 26 had appreciable (>1 cm(3)) volumes of increased MET-PET activity before treatment. Five of 19 patients had PET-GTV that was not fully encompassed within the high-dose region, and all five patients had noncentral failures. Among the 14 patients with adequately covered PET-GTV, only two had noncentral treatment failures. Three of 14 patients had no evidence of recurrence more than 1 year after radiation therapy. Inadequate PET-GTV coverage was associated with increased risk of noncentral failures. (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment MET-PET appears to identify areas at highest risk for recurrence for patients with GBM. It would be reasonable to test a strategy of incorporating MET-PET into radiation treatment planning, particularly for identifying areas for conformal boost.
Authors: Ilwoo Park; Gregory Tamai; Michael C Lee; Cynthia F Chuang; Susan M Chang; Mitchel S Berger; Sarah J Nelson; Andrea Pirzkall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: G Brix; J Zaers; L E Adam; M E Bellemann; H Ostertag; H Trojan; U Haberkorn; J Doll; F Oberdorfer; W J Lorenz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S W Lee; B A Fraass; L H Marsh; K Herbort; S S Gebarski; M K Martel; E H Radany; A S Lichter; H M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P K Sneed; K R Lamborn; D A Larson; M D Prados; M K Malec; M W McDermott; K A Weaver; T L Phillips; W M Wara; P H Gutin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrea Pirzkall; Xiaojuan Li; Joonmi Oh; Susan Chang; Mitchel S Berger; David A Larson; Lynn J Verhey; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P Farace; M G Giri; G Meliadò; D Amelio; L Widesott; G K Ricciardi; S Dall'Oglio; A Rizzotti; A Sbarbati; A Beltramello; S Maluta; M Amichetti Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Christina I Tsien; Doris Brown; Daniel Normolle; Matthew Schipper; Morand Piert; Larry Junck; Jason Heth; Diana Gomez-Hassan; Randall K Ten Haken; Thomas Chenevert; Yue Cao; Theodore Lawrence Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Daekeun You; Michelle M Kim; Madhava P Aryal; Hemant Parmar; Morand Piert; Theodore S Lawrence; Yue Cao Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-11-15
Authors: Michael Lundemann; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Aida Muhic; Vibeke A Larsen; Hans S Poulsen; Svend-Aage Engelholm; Flemming L Andersen; Andreas Kjær; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law; Adam E Hansen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christopher L Tinkle; Elizabeth C Duncan; Mikhail Doubrovin; Yuanyuan Han; Yimei Li; Hyun Kim; Alberto Broniscer; Scott E Snyder; Thomas E Merchant; Barry L Shulkin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 10.057