PURPOSE: The follow-up of treated low-grade glioma (LGG) requires the evaluation of subtle clinical changes and MRI results. When the result is inconclusive, additional procedures are required to assist decision-making, such as the use of advanced MRI (aMRI) sequences and nuclear medicine scans (SPECT and PET). The aim of this study was to determine whether incorporating (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT in the follow-up protocol for treated LGG improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. METHODS: This was a prospective case-series study in patients with treated LGG during standard follow-up with indeterminate clinical and/or radiological findings of tumour activity. All patients underwent clinical evaluation, aMRI, (201)Tl-SPECT and (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT. Images were interpreted by visual evaluation complemented with semiquantitative analysis. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and December 2013, 18 patients were included in this study. The final diagnosis was established by histology (five surgical specimens, one biopsy specimen) or by consensus of the Neuro-Oncology Group (11 patients) after a follow-up of >6 months (mean 14.9 ± 2.72 months). The global diagnostic accuracies were 90.9% for aMRI (38.8% inconclusive), 69.2 % for (201)Tl-SPECT (11.1% inconclusive), and 100% for (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT. (201)Tl-SPECT led correctly to a change in the initial approach in 38.9% of patients but might have led to error in 27.8%. The use of (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT alone rather than (201)Tl-SPECT led correctly to a change in the approach suggested by routine follow-up in 72.2% of patients and endorsed the approach in the remaining 27.8%. CONCLUSION: Our results support the need to complement structural MRI with aMRI and nuclear medicine procedures in selected patients. (18)F-Fluorocholine PET/CT can be useful in the individualized management of patients with treated LGG with uncertain clinical and/or radiological evidence of tumour activity.
PURPOSE: The follow-up of treated low-grade glioma (LGG) requires the evaluation of subtle clinical changes and MRI results. When the result is inconclusive, additional procedures are required to assist decision-making, such as the use of advanced MRI (aMRI) sequences and nuclear medicine scans (SPECT and PET). The aim of this study was to determine whether incorporating (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT in the follow-up protocol for treated LGG improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. METHODS: This was a prospective case-series study in patients with treated LGG during standard follow-up with indeterminate clinical and/or radiological findings of tumour activity. All patients underwent clinical evaluation, aMRI, (201)Tl-SPECT and (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT. Images were interpreted by visual evaluation complemented with semiquantitative analysis. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and December 2013, 18 patients were included in this study. The final diagnosis was established by histology (five surgical specimens, one biopsy specimen) or by consensus of the Neuro-Oncology Group (11 patients) after a follow-up of >6 months (mean 14.9 ± 2.72 months). The global diagnostic accuracies were 90.9% for aMRI (38.8% inconclusive), 69.2 % for (201)Tl-SPECT (11.1% inconclusive), and 100% for (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT. (201)Tl-SPECT led correctly to a change in the initial approach in 38.9% of patients but might have led to error in 27.8%. The use of (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT alone rather than (201)Tl-SPECT led correctly to a change in the approach suggested by routine follow-up in 72.2% of patients and endorsed the approach in the remaining 27.8%. CONCLUSION: Our results support the need to complement structural MRI with aMRI and nuclear medicine procedures in selected patients. (18)F-Fluorocholine PET/CT can be useful in the individualized management of patients with treated LGG with uncertain clinical and/or radiological evidence of tumour activity.
Authors: Frederic G Dhermain; Peter Hau; Heinrich Lanfermann; Andreas H Jacobs; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: M J van den Bent; J S Wefel; D Schiff; M J B Taphoorn; K Jaeckle; L Junck; T Armstrong; A Choucair; A D Waldman; T Gorlia; M Chamberlain; B G Baumert; M A Vogelbaum; D R Macdonald; D A Reardon; P Y Wen; S M Chang; A H Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Franziska Walter; Timothy Cloughesy; Martin A Walter; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Naveed Wagle; Barbara Fueger; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christian P Filss; Norbert Galldiks; Gabriele Stoffels; Michael Sabel; Hans J Wittsack; Bernd Turowski; Gerald Antoch; Ke Zhang; Gereon R Fink; Heinz H Coenen; Nadim J Shah; Hans Herzog; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Dolores Martínez Del Valle Torres; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira; Simeón Ortega Lozano; Carlos Ramos Font; Escarlata López Ramírez; Majed Katati Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yilong Fu; Lai-Chun Ong; Sudhir H Ranganath; Lin Zheng; Irene Kee; Wenbo Zhan; Sidney Yu; Pierce K H Chow; Chi-Hwa Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240