PURPOSE: To investigate prospectively the potential of O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) PET in comparison to MRI for the assessment of the response of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (rHGG) to antiangiogenic treatment. METHODS: Ten patients with rHGG were treated biweekly with bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IR). MR images and dynamic (18)F-FET PET scans were obtained at baseline and at follow-up after the start of treatment (median 4.9 weeks). Using MRI treatment response was evaluated according to RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) criteria. For (18)F-FET PET evaluation, a reduction >45 % of the metabolically active tumour volume was considered as a treatment response, with the metabolically active tumour being defined as a tumour-to-brain ratio (TBR) of ≥1.6. The results of the treatment assessments were related to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). For further evaluation of PET data, maximum and mean TBR were calculated using region-of-interest analysis at baseline and at follow-up. Additionally, (18)F-FET uptake kinetic studies were performed at baseline and at follow-up in all patients. Time-activity curves were generated and the times to peak (TTP) uptake (in minutes from the beginning of the dynamic acquisition to the maximum uptake) were calculated. RESULTS: At follow-up, MRI showed a complete response according to RANO criteria in one of the ten patients (10 %), a partial response in five patients (50 %), and stable disease in four patients (40 %). Thus, MRI did not detect tumour progression. In contrast, (18)F-FET PET revealed six metabolic responders (60 %) and four nonresponders (40 %). In the univariate survival analyses, a response detected by (18)F-FET PET predicted a significantly longer PFS (median PFS, 9 vs. 3 months; P = 0.001) and OS (median OS 23.0 months vs. 3.5 months; P = 0.001). Furthermore, in four patients (40 %), diagnosis according to RANO criteria and by (18)F-FET PET was discordant. In these patients, PET was able to detect tumour progression earlier than MRI (median time benefit 10.5 weeks; range 6-12 weeks). At baseline and at follow-up, in nonresponders TTP was significantly shorter than in responders (baseline TTP 10 ± 8 min vs. 35 ± 9 min; P = 0.002; follow-up TTP 23 ± 9 min vs. 39 ± 8 min; P = 0.02). Additionally, at baseline a kinetic pattern characterized by an early peak of (18)F-FET uptake followed by a constant descent was more frequently observed in the nonresponders (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Both standard and kinetic imaging parameters derived from(18)F-FET PET seem to predict BEV/IR treatment failure and thus contribute important additional information for clinical management over and above the information obtained by MRI response assessment based on RANO criteria.
PURPOSE: To investigate prospectively the potential of O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) PET in comparison to MRI for the assessment of the response of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (rHGG) to antiangiogenic treatment. METHODS: Ten patients with rHGG were treated biweekly with bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IR). MR images and dynamic (18)F-FET PET scans were obtained at baseline and at follow-up after the start of treatment (median 4.9 weeks). Using MRI treatment response was evaluated according to RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) criteria. For (18)F-FET PET evaluation, a reduction >45 % of the metabolically active tumour volume was considered as a treatment response, with the metabolically active tumour being defined as a tumour-to-brain ratio (TBR) of ≥1.6. The results of the treatment assessments were related to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). For further evaluation of PET data, maximum and mean TBR were calculated using region-of-interest analysis at baseline and at follow-up. Additionally, (18)F-FET uptake kinetic studies were performed at baseline and at follow-up in all patients. Time-activity curves were generated and the times to peak (TTP) uptake (in minutes from the beginning of the dynamic acquisition to the maximum uptake) were calculated. RESULTS: At follow-up, MRI showed a complete response according to RANO criteria in one of the ten patients (10 %), a partial response in five patients (50 %), and stable disease in four patients (40 %). Thus, MRI did not detect tumour progression. In contrast, (18)F-FET PET revealed six metabolic responders (60 %) and four nonresponders (40 %). In the univariate survival analyses, a response detected by (18)F-FET PET predicted a significantly longer PFS (median PFS, 9 vs. 3 months; P = 0.001) and OS (median OS 23.0 months vs. 3.5 months; P = 0.001). Furthermore, in four patients (40 %), diagnosis according to RANO criteria and by (18)F-FET PET was discordant. In these patients, PET was able to detect tumour progression earlier than MRI (median time benefit 10.5 weeks; range 6-12 weeks). At baseline and at follow-up, in nonresponders TTP was significantly shorter than in responders (baseline TTP 10 ± 8 min vs. 35 ± 9 min; P = 0.002; follow-up TTP 23 ± 9 min vs. 39 ± 8 min; P = 0.02). Additionally, at baseline a kinetic pattern characterized by an early peak of (18)F-FET uptake followed by a constant descent was more frequently observed in the nonresponders (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Both standard and kinetic imaging parameters derived from(18)F-FET PET seem to predict BEV/IR treatment failure and thus contribute important additional information for clinical management over and above the information obtained by MRI response assessment based on RANO criteria.
Authors: Marc D Piroth; Michael Pinkawa; Richard Holy; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Gabriele Stoffels; Heinz H Coenen; Hans J Kaiser; Karl J Langen; Michael J Eble Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Johannes E A Wolff; Pablo Hernaiz Driever; Bernhard Erdlenbruch; Rolf D Kortmann; Stefan Rutkowski; Torsten Pietsch; Crystal Parker; Monica Warmuth Metz; Astrid Gnekow; Christof M Kramm Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Roland Ullrich; Michael Schroeter; Gereon R Fink; Andreas H Jacobs; Lutz W Kracht Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Walter Stummer; Tobias Beck; Wolfgang Beyer; Jan Hendrik Mehrkens; Andreas Obermeier; Nima Etminan; Herbert Stepp; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Reinhold Baumgartner; Jochen Herms; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2007-11-23 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Antje Wick; Christina Pascher; Wolfgang Wick; Tanja Jauch; Michael Weller; Ulrich Bogdahn; Peter Hau Journal: J Neurol Date: 2009-02-25 Impact factor: 4.849
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: N Bahrami; D Piccioni; R Karunamuni; Y-H Chang; N White; R Delfanti; T M Seibert; J A Hattangadi-Gluth; A Dale; N Farid; C R McDonald Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Nicholas Dowson; Paul Thomas; Michael Fay; Rosalind L Jeffree; Yaniv Gal; Pierrick Bourgeat; Jye Smith; Craig Winter; Alan Coulthard; Olivier Salvado; Stuart Crozier; Stephen Rose Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Philip J O'Halloran; Thomas Viel; David W Murray; Lydia Wachsmuth; Katrin Schwegmann; Stefan Wagner; Klaus Kopka; Monika A Jarzabek; Patrick Dicker; Sven Hermann; Cornelius Faber; Tim Klasen; Michael Schäfers; David O'Brien; Jochen H M Prehn; Andreas H Jacobs; Annette T Byrne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 9.236