PURPOSE: Children with relapsed neuroblastoma have poor survival. It is crucial to have a reliable method for evaluating functional response to new therapies. In this study, we compared two functional imaging modalities for neuroblastoma: metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan for uptake by the norepinephrine transporter and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) uptake for glucose metabolic activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled onto a phase I study of sequential infusion of iodine-131 ((131)I) MIBG (NANT-2000-01) were eligible for inclusion if they had concomitant FDG-PET and MIBG scans. (131)I-MIBG therapy was administered on days 0 and 14. For each patient, we compared all lesions identified on concomitant FDG-PET and MIBG scans and gave scans a semiquantitative score. RESULTS: The overall concordance of positive lesions on concomitant MIBG and FDG-PET scans was 39.6% when examining the 139 unique anatomic lesions. MIBG imaging was significantly more sensitive than FDG-PET overall and for the detection of bone lesions (P < .001). There was a trend for increased sensitivity of FDG-PET for detection of soft tissue lesions. Both modalities showed similar improvement in number of lesions identified from day 0 to day 56 scan and in semiquantitative scores that correlated with overall response. FDG-PET scans became completely negative more often than MIBG scans after treatment. CONCLUSION: MIBG scan is significantly more sensitive for individual lesion detection in relapsed neuroblastoma than FDG-PET, though FDG-PET can sometimes play a complementary role, particularly in soft tissue lesions. Complete response by FDG-PET metabolic evaluation did not always correlate with complete response by MIBG uptake.
PURPOSE:Children with relapsed neuroblastoma have poor survival. It is crucial to have a reliable method for evaluating functional response to new therapies. In this study, we compared two functional imaging modalities for neuroblastoma: metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan for uptake by the norepinephrine transporter and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) uptake for glucose metabolic activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled onto a phase I study of sequential infusion of iodine-131 ((131)I) MIBG (NANT-2000-01) were eligible for inclusion if they had concomitant FDG-PET and MIBG scans. (131)I-MIBG therapy was administered on days 0 and 14. For each patient, we compared all lesions identified on concomitant FDG-PET and MIBG scans and gave scans a semiquantitative score. RESULTS: The overall concordance of positive lesions on concomitant MIBG and FDG-PET scans was 39.6% when examining the 139 unique anatomic lesions. MIBG imaging was significantly more sensitive than FDG-PET overall and for the detection of bone lesions (P < .001). There was a trend for increased sensitivity of FDG-PET for detection of soft tissue lesions. Both modalities showed similar improvement in number of lesions identified from day 0 to day 56 scan and in semiquantitative scores that correlated with overall response. FDG-PET scans became completely negative more often than MIBG scans after treatment. CONCLUSION:MIBG scan is significantly more sensitive for individual lesion detection in relapsed neuroblastoma than FDG-PET, though FDG-PET can sometimes play a complementary role, particularly in soft tissue lesions. Complete response by FDG-PET metabolic evaluation did not always correlate with complete response by MIBG uptake.
Authors: G M Brodeur; J Pritchard; F Berthold; N L Carlsen; V Castel; R P Castelberry; B De Bernardi; A E Evans; M Favrot; F Hedborg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Howard M Katzenstein; Susan L Cohn; Richard M Shore; Dianna M E Bardo; Paul R Haut; Marie Olszewski; Jennifer Schmoldt; Dachao Liu; Alfred W Rademaker; Morris Kletzel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas Pfluger; Christoph Schmied; Ute Porn; Gerda Leinsinger; Christian Vollmar; Stefan Dresel; Irene Schmid; Klaus Hahn Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexander Kroiss; Daniel Putzer; Christian Uprimny; Clemens Decristoforo; Michael Gabriel; Wolfram Santner; Christof Kranewitter; Boris Warwitz; Dietmar Waitz; Dorota Kendler; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Emilio Bombardieri; Francesco Giammarile; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Mortelmans; Giovanna Pepe; Sven N Reske; Maria R Castellani; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Zvi Bar-Sever; Lorenzo Biassoni; Barry Shulkin; Grace Kong; Michael S Hofman; Egesta Lopci; Irina Manea; Jacek Koziorowski; Rita Castellani; Ariane Boubaker; Bieke Lambert; Thomas Pfluger; Helen Nadel; Susan Sharp; Francesco Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: K K Matthay; B Shulkin; R Ladenstein; J Michon; F Giammarile; V Lewington; A D J Pearson; S L Cohn Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Hanwen Zhang; Ruimin Huang; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Hongfen Guo; Pat B Zanzonico; Howard T Thaler; Jason S Lewis; Ronald G Blasberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531