UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to compare MRI response assessment with metabolic O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) PET response evaluation during antiangiogenic treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (rHGG). METHODS: Eleven patients with rHGG were treated biweekly with bevacizumab-irinotecan. MR images and (18)F-FET PET scans were obtained at baseline and at follow-up 8-12 wk after treatment onset. MRI treatment response was evaluated by T1/T2 volumetry according to response assessment in neurooncology (RANO) criteria. For (18)F-FET PET evaluation, an uptake reduction of more than 45% calculated with a standardized uptake value of more than 1.6 was defined as a metabolic response (receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis). MRI and (18)F-FET PET volumetry results and response assessment were compared with each other and in relation to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At follow-up, MR images showed partial response in 7 of 11 patients (64%), stable disease in 2 of 11 patients (18%), and tumor progression in 2 of 11 patients (18%). In contrast, (18)F-FET PET revealed 5 of 11 metabolic responders (46%) and 6 of 11 nonresponders (54%). MRI and (18)F-FET PET showed that responders survived significantly longer than did nonresponders (10.24 vs. 4.1 mo, P = 0.025, and 7.9 vs. 2.3 mo, P = 0.015, respectively). In 4 patients (36.4%), diagnosis according to RANO criteria and (18)F-FET PET was discordant. In these cases, PET was able to detect tumor progression earlier than was MRI. CONCLUSION: In rHGG patients undergoing antiangiogenic treatment, (18)F-FET PET seems to be predictive for treatment failure in that it contributes important information to response assessment based solely on MRI and RANO criteria.
UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to compare MRI response assessment with metabolic O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) PET response evaluation during antiangiogenic treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (rHGG). METHODS: Eleven patients with rHGG were treated biweekly with bevacizumab-irinotecan. MR images and (18)F-FET PET scans were obtained at baseline and at follow-up 8-12 wk after treatment onset. MRI treatment response was evaluated by T1/T2 volumetry according to response assessment in neurooncology (RANO) criteria. For (18)F-FET PET evaluation, an uptake reduction of more than 45% calculated with a standardized uptake value of more than 1.6 was defined as a metabolic response (receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis). MRI and (18)F-FET PET volumetry results and response assessment were compared with each other and in relation to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At follow-up, MR images showed partial response in 7 of 11 patients (64%), stable disease in 2 of 11 patients (18%), and tumor progression in 2 of 11 patients (18%). In contrast, (18)F-FET PET revealed 5 of 11 metabolic responders (46%) and 6 of 11 nonresponders (54%). MRI and (18)F-FET PET showed that responders survived significantly longer than did nonresponders (10.24 vs. 4.1 mo, P = 0.025, and 7.9 vs. 2.3 mo, P = 0.015, respectively). In 4 patients (36.4%), diagnosis according to RANO criteria and (18)F-FET PET was discordant. In these cases, PET was able to detect tumor progression earlier than was MRI. CONCLUSION: In rHGG patients undergoing antiangiogenic treatment, (18)F-FET PET seems to be predictive for treatment failure in that it contributes important information to response assessment based solely on MRI and RANO criteria.
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: 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: Nathalie L Albert; Michael Weller; Bogdana Suchorska; Norbert Galldiks; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Christian la Fougère; Whitney Pope; Ian Law; Javier Arbizu; Marc C Chamberlain; Michael Vogelbaum; Ben M Ellingson; Joerg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Stefan Haneder; Frank A Giordano; Simon Konstandin; Stefanie Brehmer; Karen A Buesing; Peter Schmiedek; Lothar R Schad; Frederik Wenz; Stefan O Schoenberg; Melissa M Ong Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Olivia Kertels; Almuth F Kessler; Milena I Mihovilovic; Antje Stolzenburg; Thomas Linsenmann; Samuel Samnick; Stephanie Brändlein; Camelia Maria Monoranu; Ralf-Ingo Ernestus; Andreas K Buck; Mario Löhr; Constantin Lapa Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.488