Constantin Lapa1, Thomas Linsenmann2, Camelia Maria Monoranu3, Samuel Samnick1, Andreas K Buck1, Christina Bluemel1, Johannes Czernin4, Almuth F Kessler2, Gyoergy A Homola5, Ralf-Ingo Ernestus2, Mario Löhr2, Ken Herrmann6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 3. Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 4. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and herrmann_k1@ukw.de.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: High-grade gliomas (HGGs) are the most common malignant primary tumors of the central nervous system. PET probes of amino acid transport such as O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine ((18)F-FET), 3,4-dihydroxy-6-(18)F-fluoro-l-phenylalanine ((18)F-DOPA), and (11)C-methionine ((11)C-MET) detect primary and recurrent tumors with a high accuracy. (18)F-FET is predominantly used in Europe, whereas amino acid transport imaging is infrequently done in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine whether (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA PET/CT provide comparable information in HGG. METHODS: Thirty (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA PET/CT scans were obtained before surgery or biopsy in 27 patients with high clinical suspicion for primary or recurrent HGG (5 primary, 22 recurrent tumors). (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA PET/CT images were compared visually and semiquantitatively (maximum standardized uptake value [SUV(max)], mean SUV [SUV(mean)]). Background (SUV(max) and SUV(mean)) and tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) were calculated for both PET probes. The degree of (18)F-DOPA uptake in the basal ganglia (SUV(mean)) was also assessed. RESULTS: Visual analysis revealed no difference in tumor uptake pattern between the 2 PET probes. The SUV(mean) and SUV(max) for (18)F-FET were higher than those of (18)F-DOPA (4.0 ± 2.0 and 4.9 ± 2.3 vs. 3.5 ± 1.6 and 4.3 ± 2.0, respectively; all P < 0.001). TBRs for SUV(mean) but not for SUV(max) were significantly higher for (18)F-FET than (18)F-DOPA (TBR SUV(mean): 3.8 ± 1.7 vs. 3.4 ± 1.2, P = 0.004; TBR SUV(max): 3.3 ± 1.6 and 3.0 ± 1.1, respectively; P = 0.086). (18)F-DOPA uptake by the basal ganglia was present (SUV(mean), 2.6 ± 0.7) but did not affect tumor visualization. CONCLUSION: Whereas visual analysis revealed no significant differences in uptake pattern for (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA in patients with primary or recurrent HGG, both SUVs and TBRs for SUV(mean) were significantly higher for (18)F-FET. However, regarding tumor delineation, both tracers performed equally well and seem equally feasible for imaging of primary and recurrent HGG. These findings suggest that both PET probes can be used based on availability in multicenter trials.
UNLABELLED: High-grade gliomas (HGGs) are the most common malignant primary tumors of the central nervous system. PET probes of amino acid transport such as O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine ((18)F-FET), 3,4-dihydroxy-6-(18)F-fluoro-l-phenylalanine ((18)F-DOPA), and (11)C-methionine ((11)C-MET) detect primary and recurrent tumors with a high accuracy. (18)F-FET is predominantly used in Europe, whereas amino acid transport imaging is infrequently done in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine whether (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA PET/CT provide comparable information in HGG. METHODS: Thirty (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA PET/CT scans were obtained before surgery or biopsy in 27 patients with high clinical suspicion for primary or recurrent HGG (5 primary, 22 recurrent tumors). (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA PET/CT images were compared visually and semiquantitatively (maximum standardized uptake value [SUV(max)], mean SUV [SUV(mean)]). Background (SUV(max) and SUV(mean)) and tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) were calculated for both PET probes. The degree of (18)F-DOPA uptake in the basal ganglia (SUV(mean)) was also assessed. RESULTS: Visual analysis revealed no difference in tumor uptake pattern between the 2 PET probes. The SUV(mean) and SUV(max) for (18)F-FET were higher than those of (18)F-DOPA (4.0 ± 2.0 and 4.9 ± 2.3 vs. 3.5 ± 1.6 and 4.3 ± 2.0, respectively; all P < 0.001). TBRs for SUV(mean) but not for SUV(max) were significantly higher for (18)F-FET than (18)F-DOPA (TBR SUV(mean): 3.8 ± 1.7 vs. 3.4 ± 1.2, P = 0.004; TBR SUV(max): 3.3 ± 1.6 and 3.0 ± 1.1, respectively; P = 0.086). (18)F-DOPA uptake by the basal ganglia was present (SUV(mean), 2.6 ± 0.7) but did not affect tumor visualization. CONCLUSION: Whereas visual analysis revealed no significant differences in uptake pattern for (18)F-FET and (18)F-DOPA in patients with primary or recurrent HGG, both SUVs and TBRs for SUV(mean) were significantly higher for (18)F-FET. However, regarding tumor delineation, both tracers performed equally well and seem equally feasible for imaging of primary and recurrent HGG. These findings suggest that both PET probes can be used based on availability in multicenter trials.
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
Authors: Lance T Hall; Benjamin Titz; H Ian Robins; Bryan P Bednarz; Scott B Perlman; Jamey P Weichert; John S Kuo Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-01
Authors: Francesco Cicone; Christian P Filss; Giuseppe Minniti; Camilla Rossi-Espagnet; Annalisa Papa; Claudia Scaringi; Norbert Galldiks; Alessandro Bozzao; N Jon Shah; Francesco Scopinaro; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lance T Hall; Benjamin Titz; Nishanta Baidya; Anja G van der Kolk; H Ian Robins; Mario Otto; Scott B Perlman; Jamey P Weichert; John S Kuo Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Veronika Dunkl; Garry Ceccon; Caroline Tscherpel; Gabriele Stoffels; Ian Law; Otto M Henriksen; Aida Muhic; Hans S Poulsen; Jan Steger; Elena K Bauer; Philipp Lohmann; Matthias Schmidt; Nadim J Shah; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-07 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