PURPOSE: Since differentiation between low-grade glioma (LGG) and high-grade glioma (HGG) remains challenging according to MRI criteria alone, we investigated the discriminative value of additional dynamic FET PET in patients with MRI-suspected LGG. METHODS: Included in this retrospective study were 127 patients with newly diagnosed MRI-suspected LGG and dynamic FET PET prior to histopathological assessment. FET PET lesions were visually classified as having reduced, normal, or increased tracer uptake. Maximal tumour uptake scaled to the mean background uptake (SUV(max)/BG), mean tumour uptake (SUV(mean)/BG), biological tumour volume and kinetics were evaluated and correlated with individual histopathological findings. RESULTS: Histopathological analysis revealed 71 patients with LGG, 47 patients with HGG (including 5 glioblastoma multiforme), 2 patients with low-grade ganglioglioma and 7 patients with non-neoplastic lesions. Of the 127 patients, 97 had lesions with increased FET uptake, of which 93 were neoplastic. Increased uptake was found in 49/71 LGG (69 %) and 42/47 HGG (89 %). None of the conventional uptake parameters differed significantly between the HGG and LGG groups. Kinetic analysis reliably identified HGG (sensitivity 95 %, specificity 72 %, PPV 74 %, NPV 95 %). Normal tracer uptake was observed in 19 patients (15 with LGG, 1 with HGG and 3 with non-neoplastic lesions) and reduced uptake in 11 patients (7 with LGG and 4 with HGG). CONCLUSION: Among the MRI-suspected LGG, kinetic but not conventional analysis of FET uptake enabled remarkably high sensitivity for detection of HGG. This held true even for lesions with low or diffuse tracer uptake. Lesions with reduced tracer uptake must be interpreted with caution, as they can also harbour HGG tissue.
PURPOSE: Since differentiation between low-grade glioma (LGG) and high-grade glioma (HGG) remains challenging according to MRI criteria alone, we investigated the discriminative value of additional dynamic FET PET in patients with MRI-suspected LGG. METHODS: Included in this retrospective study were 127 patients with newly diagnosed MRI-suspected LGG and dynamic FET PET prior to histopathological assessment. FET PET lesions were visually classified as having reduced, normal, or increased tracer uptake. Maximal tumour uptake scaled to the mean background uptake (SUV(max)/BG), mean tumour uptake (SUV(mean)/BG), biological tumour volume and kinetics were evaluated and correlated with individual histopathological findings. RESULTS: Histopathological analysis revealed 71 patients with LGG, 47 patients with HGG (including 5 glioblastoma multiforme), 2 patients with low-grade ganglioglioma and 7 patients with non-neoplastic lesions. Of the 127 patients, 97 had lesions with increased FET uptake, of which 93 were neoplastic. Increased uptake was found in 49/71 LGG (69 %) and 42/47 HGG (89 %). None of the conventional uptake parameters differed significantly between the HGG and LGG groups. Kinetic analysis reliably identified HGG (sensitivity 95 %, specificity 72 %, PPV 74 %, NPV 95 %). Normal tracer uptake was observed in 19 patients (15 with LGG, 1 with HGG and 3 with non-neoplastic lesions) and reduced uptake in 11 patients (7 with LGG and 4 with HGG). CONCLUSION: Among the MRI-suspected LGG, kinetic but not conventional analysis of FET uptake enabled remarkably high sensitivity for detection of HGG. This held true even for lesions with low or diffuse tracer uptake. Lesions with reduced tracer uptake must be interpreted with caution, as they can also harbour HGG tissue.
Authors: Frank W Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Michael Sabel; Gabriele Stoffels; Guido Reifenberger; Markus J Riemenschneider; Paul Jansen; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Jakob Steiger; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Gabriele Pöpperl; Friedrich W Kreth; Jan H Mehrkens; Jochen Herms; Klaus Seelos; Walter Koch; Franz J Gildehaus; Hans A Kretzschmar; Jörg C Tonn; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frank Thiele; Julia Ehmer; Marc D Piroth; Michael J Eble; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Juergen Kaiser; Wolfgang M Schaefer; Ulrich Buell; Christian Boy Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 3.609
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: 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: Markus Hutterer; Martha Nowosielski; Daniel Putzer; Christian la Fougère; Irene J Virgolini; Andreas H Jacobs; Günther Stockhammer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 12.300
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