Thomas Pyka1, Jens Gempt2, Daniela Hiob3, Florian Ringel2, Jürgen Schlegel4, Stefanie Bette5, Hans-Jürgen Wester3, Bernhard Meyer2, Stefan Förster3,6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str., Munich, Germany. thomas.pyka@tum.de. 2. Neurosurgic Department, Klinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str., Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str., Munich, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology and Neuropathology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str., Munich, Germany. 5. Neuroradiologic department, Klinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str., Munich, Germany. 6. TUM Neuroimaging Center (TUM-NIC), Klinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str., Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Amino acid positron emission tomography (PET) with [18F]-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) is well established in the diagnostic work-up of malignant brain tumors. Analysis of FET-PET data using tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) has been shown to be highly valuable for the detection of viable hypermetabolic brain tumor tissue; however, it has not proven equally useful for tumor grading. Recently, textural features in 18-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET have been proposed as a method to quantify the heterogeneity of glucose metabolism in a variety of tumor entities. Herein we evaluate whether textural FET-PET features are of utility for grading and prognostication in patients with high-grade gliomas. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients (70 men, 43 women) with histologically proven high-grade gliomas were included in this retrospective study. All patients received static FET-PET scans prior to first-line therapy. TBR (max and mean), volumetric parameters and textural parameters based on gray-level neighborhood difference matrices were derived from static FET-PET images. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and discriminant function analyses were used to assess the value for tumor grading. Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate and multivariate Cox regression were employed for analysis of progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: All FET-PET textural parameters showed the ability to differentiate between World Health Organization (WHO) grade III and IV tumors (p < 0.001; AUC 0.775). Further improvement in discriminatory power was possible through a combination of texture and metabolic tumor volume, classifying 85 % of tumors correctly (AUC 0.830). TBR and volumetric parameters alone were correlated with tumor grade, but showed lower AUC values (0.644 and 0.710, respectively). Furthermore, a correlation of FET-PET texture but not TBR was shown with patient PFS and OS, proving significant in multivariate analysis as well. Volumetric parameters were predictive for OS, but this correlation did not hold in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of uptake heterogeneity in pre-therapeutic FET-PET using textural features proved valuable for the (sub-)grading of high-grade glioma as well as prediction of tumor progression and patient survival, and showed improved performance compared to standard parameters such as TBR and tumor volume. Our results underscore the importance of intratumoral heterogeneity in the biology of high-grade glial cell tumors and may contribute to individual therapy planning in the future, although they must be confirmed in prospective studies before incorporation into clinical routine.
PURPOSE: Amino acid positron emission tomography (PET) with [18F]-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) is well established in the diagnostic work-up of malignant brain tumors. Analysis of FET-PET data using tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) has been shown to be highly valuable for the detection of viable hypermetabolic brain tumor tissue; however, it has not proven equally useful for tumor grading. Recently, textural features in 18-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET have been proposed as a method to quantify the heterogeneity of glucose metabolism in a variety of tumor entities. Herein we evaluate whether textural FET-PET features are of utility for grading and prognostication in patients with high-grade gliomas. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients (70 men, 43 women) with histologically proven high-grade gliomas were included in this retrospective study. All patients received static FET-PET scans prior to first-line therapy. TBR (max and mean), volumetric parameters and textural parameters based on gray-level neighborhood difference matrices were derived from static FET-PET images. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and discriminant function analyses were used to assess the value for tumor grading. Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate and multivariate Cox regression were employed for analysis of progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: All FET-PET textural parameters showed the ability to differentiate between World Health Organization (WHO) grade III and IV tumors (p < 0.001; AUC 0.775). Further improvement in discriminatory power was possible through a combination of texture and metabolic tumor volume, classifying 85 % of tumors correctly (AUC 0.830). TBR and volumetric parameters alone were correlated with tumor grade, but showed lower AUC values (0.644 and 0.710, respectively). Furthermore, a correlation of FET-PET texture but not TBR was shown with patient PFS and OS, proving significant in multivariate analysis as well. Volumetric parameters were predictive for OS, but this correlation did not hold in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of uptake heterogeneity in pre-therapeutic FET-PET using textural features proved valuable for the (sub-)grading of high-grade glioma as well as prediction of tumor progression and patient survival, and showed improved performance compared to standard parameters such as TBR and tumor volume. Our results underscore the importance of intratumoral heterogeneity in the biology of high-grade glial cell tumors and may contribute to individual therapy planning in the future, although they must be confirmed in prospective studies before incorporation into clinical routine.
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: T Pyka; J Gempt; F Ringel; S Hüttinger; S van Marwick; S Nekolla; H-J Wester; M Schwaiger; S Förster Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Balaji Ganeshan; Vicky Goh; Henry C Mandeville; Quan Sing Ng; Peter J Hoskin; Kenneth A Miles Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Gary J R Cook; Connie Yip; Muhammad Siddique; Vicky Goh; Sugama Chicklore; Arunabha Roy; Paul Marsden; Shahreen Ahmad; David Landau Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David A Gutman; Lee A D Cooper; Scott N Hwang; Chad A Holder; Jingjing Gao; Tarun D Aurora; William D Dunn; Lisa Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; Rajan Jain; Max Wintermark; Manal Jilwan; Prashant Raghavan; Erich Huang; Robert J Clifford; Pattanasak Mongkolwat; Vladimir Kleper; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Pascal O Zinn; Carlos S Moreno; Carl Jaffe; Rivka Colen; Daniel L Rubin; Joel Saltz; Adam Flanders; Daniel J Brat Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Manuel Röhrich; Kristin Huang; Daniel Schrimpf; Nathalie L Albert; Thomas Hielscher; Andreas von Deimling; Ulrich Schüller; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Pierre Lovinfosse; Marc Polus; Daniel Van Daele; Philippe Martinive; Frédéric Daenen; Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Benjamin Koopmansch; Frédéric Lambert; Carla Coimbra; Laurence Seidel; Adelin Albert; Philippe Delvenne; Roland Hustinx Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Matthias Kroiss; Masatoyo Nakajo; Dirk O Mügge; Stefanie Hahner; Martin Fassnacht; Andreas Schirbel; Christina Bluemel; Takahiro Higuchi; Laszló Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Andreas K Buck; Ralph A Bundschuh; Constantin Lapa Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.633