Otto M Henriksen1, Vibeke A Larsen2, Aida Muhic3, Adam E Hansen4, Henrik B W Larsson5, Hans S Poulsen3, Ian Law4. 1. Department of Clinical Physiology Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Blegdamsvej, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. ohen0009@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Blegdamsvej, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Blegdamsvej, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Physiology Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Blegdamsvej, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Functional Imaging Unit, Department of Clinical Physiology Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Ndr. Ringvej 57, 2600, Glostrup, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Both [(18)F]-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) PET and blood volume (BV) MRI supplement routine T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI in gliomas, but whether the two modalities provide identical or complementary information is unresolved. The aims of the study were to investigate the feasibility of simultaneous structural MRI, BV MRI and FET PET of gliomas using an integrated PET/MRI scanner and to assess the spatial and quantitative agreement in tumour imaging between BV MRI and FET PET. METHODS: A total of 32 glioma patients underwent a 20-min static simultaneous PET/MRI acquisition on a Siemens mMR system 20 min after injection of 200 MBq FET. The MRI protocol included standard structural MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) imaging for BV measurements. Maximal relative tumour FET uptake (TBRmax) and BV (rBVmax), and Dice coefficients were calculated to assess the quantitative and spatial congruence in the tumour volumes determined by FET PET, BV MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI. RESULTS: FET volume and TBRmax were higher in BV-positive than in BV-negative scans, and both VOLBV and rBVmax were higher in FET-positive than in FET-negative scans. TBRmax and rBVmax were positively correlated (R (2) = 0.59, p < 0.001). FET and BV positivity were in agreement in only 26 of the 32 patients and in 42 of 63 lesions, and spatial congruence in the tumour volumes as assessed by the Dice coefficients was generally poor with median Dice coefficients exceeding 0.1 in less than half the patients positive on at least one modality for any pair of modalities. In 56 % of the patients susceptibility artefacts in DSC BV maps overlapped the tumour on MRI. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that although tumour volumes determined by BV MRI and FET PET were quantitatively correlated, their spatial congruence in a mixed population of treated glioma patients was generally poor, and the modalities did not provide the same information in this population of patients. Combined imaging of brain tumour metabolism and perfusion using hybrid PET/MR systems may provide complementary information on tumour biology, but the potential clinical value remains to be determined in future trials.
PURPOSE: Both [(18)F]-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) PET and blood volume (BV) MRI supplement routine T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI in gliomas, but whether the two modalities provide identical or complementary information is unresolved. The aims of the study were to investigate the feasibility of simultaneous structural MRI, BV MRI and FET PET of gliomas using an integrated PET/MRI scanner and to assess the spatial and quantitative agreement in tumour imaging between BV MRI and FET PET. METHODS: A total of 32 gliomapatients underwent a 20-min static simultaneous PET/MRI acquisition on a Siemens mMR system 20 min after injection of 200 MBq FET. The MRI protocol included standard structural MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) imaging for BV measurements. Maximal relative tumour FET uptake (TBRmax) and BV (rBVmax), and Dice coefficients were calculated to assess the quantitative and spatial congruence in the tumour volumes determined by FET PET, BV MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI. RESULTS: FET volume and TBRmax were higher in BV-positive than in BV-negative scans, and both VOLBV and rBVmax were higher in FET-positive than in FET-negative scans. TBRmax and rBVmax were positively correlated (R (2) = 0.59, p < 0.001). FET and BV positivity were in agreement in only 26 of the 32 patients and in 42 of 63 lesions, and spatial congruence in the tumour volumes as assessed by the Dice coefficients was generally poor with median Dice coefficients exceeding 0.1 in less than half the patients positive on at least one modality for any pair of modalities. In 56 % of the patients susceptibility artefacts in DSC BV maps overlapped the tumour on MRI. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that although tumour volumes determined by BV MRI and FET PET were quantitatively correlated, their spatial congruence in a mixed population of treated gliomapatients was generally poor, and the modalities did not provide the same information in this population of patients. Combined imaging of brain tumour metabolism and perfusion using hybrid PET/MR systems may provide complementary information on tumour biology, but the potential clinical value remains to be determined in future trials.
Authors: Frank W Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Michael Sabel; Gabriele Stoffels; Guido Reifenberger; Markus J Riemenschneider; Paul Jansen; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Jakob Steiger; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Eddie W F Lau; Katharine J Drummond; Robert E Ware; Elizabeth Drummond; Annette Hogg; Gail Ryan; Andrew Grigg; Jason Callahan; Rodney J Hicks Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 1.961
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: Markus Hutterer; Martha Nowosielski; Daniel Putzer; Nathalie L Jansen; Marcel Seiz; Michael Schocke; Mark McCoy; Georg Göbel; Christian la Fougère; Irene J Virgolini; Eugen Trinka; Andreas H Jacobs; Günther Stockhammer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Antoine Verger; Christian P Filss; Philipp Lohmann; Gabriele Stoffels; Michael Sabel; Hans J Wittsack; Elena Rota Kops; Norbert Galldiks; Gereon R Fink; Nadim J Shah; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; Adam E Hansen; Aida Muhic; Lisbeth Marner; Karine Madsen; Søren Møller; Benedikte Hasselbalch; Michael J Lundemann; David Scheie; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Hans S Poulsen; Vibeke A Larsen; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Lundemann; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Aida Muhic; Vibeke A Larsen; Hans S Poulsen; Svend-Aage Engelholm; Flemming L Andersen; Andreas Kjær; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law; Adam E Hansen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lisbeth Marner; Michael Lundemann; Astrid Sehested; Karsten Nysom; Lise Borgwardt; René Mathiasen; Peder S Wehner; Otto M Henriksen; Carsten Thomsen; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Helle Broholm; Olga Østrup; Julie L Forman; Liselotte Højgaard; Ian Law Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 12.300