Per Jensen1, Ling Feng1, Ian Law2, Claus Svarer1, Gitte M Knudsen1, Jens D Mikkelsen1, Robin de Nijs2, Vibeke A Larsen3, Agnete Dyssegaard1, Gerda Thomsen1, Walter Fischer4, Denis Guilloteau5, Lars H Pinborg6. 1. Neurobiology Research Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine, and PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Université François-Rabelais de Tours, INSERM U930 "Imaging and Brain," Tours, France; and. 6. Neurobiology Research Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark Epilepsy Clinic, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark pinborg@nru.dk.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Here we compare translocator protein (TSPO) imaging using 6-chloro-2-(4'-(123)I-iodophenyl)-3-(N,N-diethyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-acetamide SPECT ((123)I-CLINDE) and amino acid transport imaging using O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET ((18)F-FET) and investigate whether (123)I-CLINDE is superior to (18)F-FET in predicting progression of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) at follow-up. METHODS: Three patients with World Health Organization grade IV GBM were scanned with (123)I-CLINDE SPECT, (18)F-FET PET, and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Molecular imaging data were compared with follow-up gadolinium-enhanced MR images or contrast-enhanced CT scans. RESULTS: The percentage overlap between volumes of interest (VOIs) of increased (18)F-FET uptake and (123)I-CLINDE binding was variable (12%-42%). The percentage overlap of MR imaging baseline VOIs was greater for (18)F-FET (79%-93%) than (123)I-CLINDE (15%-30%). In contrast, VOIs of increased contrast enhancement at follow-up compared with baseline overlapped to a greater extent with baseline (123)I-CLINDE VOIs than (18)F-FET VOIs (21% vs. 8% and 72% vs. 55%). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results suggest that TSPO brain imaging in GBM may be a useful tool for predicting tumor progression at follow-up and may be less susceptible to changes in blood-brain barrier permeability than (18)F-FET. Larger studies are warranted to test the clinical potential of TSPO imaging in GBM, including presurgical planning and radiotherapy.
UNLABELLED: Here we compare translocator protein (TSPO) imaging using 6-chloro-2-(4'-(123)I-iodophenyl)-3-(N,N-diethyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-acetamide SPECT ((123)I-CLINDE) and amino acid transport imaging using O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET ((18)F-FET) and investigate whether (123)I-CLINDE is superior to (18)F-FET in predicting progression of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) at follow-up. METHODS: Three patients with World Health Organization grade IV GBM were scanned with (123)I-CLINDE SPECT, (18)F-FET PET, and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Molecular imaging data were compared with follow-up gadolinium-enhanced MR images or contrast-enhanced CT scans. RESULTS: The percentage overlap between volumes of interest (VOIs) of increased (18)F-FET uptake and (123)I-CLINDE binding was variable (12%-42%). The percentage overlap of MR imaging baseline VOIs was greater for (18)F-FET (79%-93%) than (123)I-CLINDE (15%-30%). In contrast, VOIs of increased contrast enhancement at follow-up compared with baseline overlapped to a greater extent with baseline (123)I-CLINDE VOIs than (18)F-FET VOIs (21% vs. 8% and 72% vs. 55%). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results suggest that TSPO brain imaging in GBM may be a useful tool for predicting tumor progression at follow-up and may be less susceptible to changes in blood-brain barrier permeability than (18)F-FET. Larger studies are warranted to test the clinical potential of TSPO imaging in GBM, including presurgical planning and radiotherapy.
Authors: Linda L Lee; Hnin H Aung; Dennis W Wilson; Steven E Anderson; John C Rutledge; Jennifer M Rutkowsky Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; M Unterrainer; D F Fleischmann; S Lindner; F Vettermann; A Brunegraf; L Vomacka; M Brendel; V Wenter; C Wetzel; R Rupprecht; J-C Tonn; C Belka; P Bartenstein; M Niyazi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Cornelius K Donat; Khaled Gaber; Jürgen Meixensberger; Peter Brust; Lars H Pinborg; Henrik H Hansen; Jens D Mikkelsen Journal: Neuromolecular Med Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Lena Kaiser; Adrien Holzgreve; Stefanie Quach; Michael Ingrisch; Marcus Unterrainer; Franziska J Dekorsy; Simon Lindner; Viktoria Ruf; Julia Brosch-Lenz; Astrid Delker; Guido Böning; Bogdana Suchorska; Maximilian Niyazi; Christian H Wetzel; Markus J Riemenschneider; Sophia Stöcklein; Matthias Brendel; Rainer Rupprecht; Niklas Thon; Louisa von Baumgarten; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Peter Bartenstein; Sibylle Ziegler; Nathalie L Albert Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Navid Zeraatkar; Kesava S Kalluri; Benjamin Auer; Arda Konik; Timothy J Fromme; Lars R Furenlid; Phillip H Kuo; Michael A King Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Bastian Zinnhardt; Michael Müther; Wolfgang Roll; Philipp Backhaus; Astrid Jeibmann; Claudia Foray; Cristina Barca; Christian Döring; Bertrand Tavitian; Frédéric Dollé; Matthias Weckesser; Alexandra Winkeler; Sven Hermann; Stefan Wagner; Heinz Wiendl; Walter Stummer; Andreas H Jacobs; Michael Schäfers; Oliver M Grauer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Marcus Unterrainer; D F Fleischmann; C Diekmann; L Vomacka; S Lindner; F Vettermann; M Brendel; V Wenter; B Ertl-Wagner; J Herms; C Wetzel; R Rupprecht; J C Tonn; C Belka; P Bartenstein; M Niyazi; Nathalie L Albert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-22 Impact factor: 9.236