OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic potential of dual-time-point imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) using O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) for non-invasive grading of cerebral gliomas compared with a dynamic approach. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with histologically confirmed cerebral gliomas (21 primary, 15 recurrent; 24 high-grade, 12 low-grade) underwent dynamic PET from 0 to 50 min post-injection (p.i.) of (18)F-FET, and additionally from 70 to 90 min p.i. Mean tumour-to-brain ratios (TBRmean) of (18)F-FET uptake were determined in early (20-40 min p.i.) and late (70-90 min p.i.) examinations. Time-activity curves (TAC) of the tumours from 0 to 50 min after injection were assigned to different patterns. The diagnostic accuracy of changes of (18)F-FET uptake between early and late examinations for tumour grading was compared to that of curve pattern analysis from 0 to 50 min p.i. of (18)F-FET. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of changes of the TBRmean of (18)F-FET PET uptake between early and late examinations for the identification of HGG was 81% (sensitivity 83%; specificity 75%; cutoff - 8%; p < 0.001), and 83% for curve pattern analysis (sensitivity 88%; specificity 75%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Dual-time-point imaging of (18)F-FET uptake in gliomas achieves diagnostic accuracy for tumour grading that is similar to the more time-consuming dynamic data acquisition protocol. KEY POINTS: • Dual-time-point imaging is equivalent to dynamic FET PET for grading of gliomas. • Dual-time-point imaging is less time consuming than dynamic FET PET. • Costs can be reduced due to higher patient throughput. • Reduced imaging time increases patient comfort and sedation might be avoided. • Quicker image interpretation is possible, as no curve evaluation is necessary.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic potential of dual-time-point imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) using O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) for non-invasive grading of cerebral gliomas compared with a dynamic approach. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with histologically confirmed cerebral gliomas (21 primary, 15 recurrent; 24 high-grade, 12 low-grade) underwent dynamic PET from 0 to 50 min post-injection (p.i.) of (18)F-FET, and additionally from 70 to 90 min p.i. Mean tumour-to-brain ratios (TBRmean) of (18)F-FET uptake were determined in early (20-40 min p.i.) and late (70-90 min p.i.) examinations. Time-activity curves (TAC) of the tumours from 0 to 50 min after injection were assigned to different patterns. The diagnostic accuracy of changes of (18)F-FET uptake between early and late examinations for tumour grading was compared to that of curve pattern analysis from 0 to 50 min p.i. of (18)F-FET. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of changes of the TBRmean of (18)F-FET PET uptake between early and late examinations for the identification of HGG was 81% (sensitivity 83%; specificity 75%; cutoff - 8%; p < 0.001), and 83% for curve pattern analysis (sensitivity 88%; specificity 75%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Dual-time-point imaging of (18)F-FET uptake in gliomas achieves diagnostic accuracy for tumour grading that is similar to the more time-consuming dynamic data acquisition protocol. KEY POINTS: • Dual-time-point imaging is equivalent to dynamic FET PET for grading of gliomas. • Dual-time-point imaging is less time consuming than dynamic FET PET. • Costs can be reduced due to higher patient throughput. • Reduced imaging time increases patient comfort and sedation might be avoided. • Quicker image interpretation is possible, as no curve evaluation is necessary.
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: Jonathan McConathy; Weiping Yu; Nachwa Jarkas; Wonewoo Seo; David M Schuster; Mark M Goodman Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 12.944
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: Gérard Moulin-Romsée; Eduard D'Hondt; Tjibbe de Groot; Jan Goffin; Raf Sciot; Luc Mortelmans; Johan Menten; Guy Bormans; Koen Van Laere Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gabriele Pöpperl; Friedrich W Kreth; Jochen Herms; Walter Koch; Jan H Mehrkens; Franz J Gildehaus; Hans A Kretzschmar; Jörg C Tonn; Klaus Tatsch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dirk Pauleit; Gabriele Stoffels; Ansgar Bachofner; Frank W Floeth; Michael Sabel; Hans Herzog; Lutz Tellmann; Paul Jansen; Guido Reifenberger; Kurt Hamacher; Heinz H Coenen; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 2.408
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: 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: Peggy Gandia; Cyril Jaudet; Hendrik Everaert; Johannes Heemskerk; Anne Marie Vanbinst; Johan de Mey; Johnny Duerinck; Bart Neyns; Mark de Ridder; Etienne Chatelut; Didier Concordet Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: M Unterrainer; I Winkelmann; B Suchorska; A Giese; V Wenter; F W Kreth; J Herms; P Bartenstein; J C Tonn; N L Albert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Milan Grkovski; Zachary A Kohutek; Heiko Schöder; Cameron W Brennan; Viviane S Tabar; Philip H Gutin; Zhigang Zhang; Robert J Young; Bradley J Beattie; Pat B Zanzonico; Jason T Huse; Marc K Rosenblum; Ronald G Blasberg; John L Humm; Kathryn Beal Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 9.236