Nathalie L Albert1, Isabel Winkelmann2, Bogdana Suchorska3, Vera Wenter2, Christine Schmid-Tannwald4, Erik Mille2, Andrei Todica2, Matthias Brendel2, Jörg-Christian Tonn3, Peter Bartenstein2, Christian la Fougère5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. albert@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of Tübingen, Otfried-Müller Str. 14, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current guidelines for glioma imaging by positron emission tomography (PET) using the amino acid analogue O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) recommend image acquisition from 20-40 min post injection (p.i.). The maximal tumour-to-background evaluation (TBRmax) obtained in these summation images does not enable reliable differentiation between low and high grade glioma (LGG and HGG), which, however, can be achieved by dynamic (18)F-FET-PET. We investigated the accuracy of tumour grading using TBRmax values at different earlier time points after tracer injection. METHODS: Three hundred and fourteen patients with histologically proven primary diagnosis of glioma (131 LGG, 183 HGG) who had undergone 40-min dynamic (18)F-FET-PET scans were retrospectively evaluated. TBRmax was assessed in the standard 20-40 min summation images, as well as in summation images from 0-10 min, 5-15 min, 5-20 min, and 15-30 min p.i., and kinetic analysis was performed. TBRmax values and kinetic analysis were correlated with histological classification. ROC analyses were performed for each time frame and sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were assessed. RESULTS: TBRmax values in the earlier summation images were significantly better for tumour grading (P < 0.001) when compared to standard 20-40 min scans, with best results for the early 5-15 min scan. This was due to higher TBRmax in the HGG (3.9 vs. 3.3; p < 0.001), while TBRmax remained nearly stable in the LGG (2.2 vs. 2.1). Overall, accuracy increased from 70 % in the 20-40 min analysis to 77 % in the 5-15 min images, but did not reach the accuracy of dynamic analysis (80 %). CONCLUSIONS: Early TBRmax assessment (5-15 min p.i.) is more accurate for the differentiation between LGG and HGG than the standard static scan (20-40 min p.i.) mainly caused by the characteristic high (18)F-FET uptake of HGG in the initial phase. Therefore, when dynamic (18)F-FET-PET cannot be performed, early TBRmax assessment can be considered as an alternative for tumour grading.
PURPOSE: Current guidelines for glioma imaging by positron emission tomography (PET) using the amino acid analogue O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) recommend image acquisition from 20-40 min post injection (p.i.). The maximal tumour-to-background evaluation (TBRmax) obtained in these summation images does not enable reliable differentiation between low and high grade glioma (LGG and HGG), which, however, can be achieved by dynamic (18)F-FET-PET. We investigated the accuracy of tumour grading using TBRmax values at different earlier time points after tracer injection. METHODS: Three hundred and fourteen patients with histologically proven primary diagnosis of glioma (131 LGG, 183 HGG) who had undergone 40-min dynamic (18)F-FET-PET scans were retrospectively evaluated. TBRmax was assessed in the standard 20-40 min summation images, as well as in summation images from 0-10 min, 5-15 min, 5-20 min, and 15-30 min p.i., and kinetic analysis was performed. TBRmax values and kinetic analysis were correlated with histological classification. ROC analyses were performed for each time frame and sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were assessed. RESULTS:TBRmax values in the earlier summation images were significantly better for tumour grading (P < 0.001) when compared to standard 20-40 min scans, with best results for the early 5-15 min scan. This was due to higher TBRmax in the HGG (3.9 vs. 3.3; p < 0.001), while TBRmax remained nearly stable in the LGG (2.2 vs. 2.1). Overall, accuracy increased from 70 % in the 20-40 min analysis to 77 % in the 5-15 min images, but did not reach the accuracy of dynamic analysis (80 %). CONCLUSIONS: Early TBRmax assessment (5-15 min p.i.) is more accurate for the differentiation between LGG and HGG than the standard static scan (20-40 min p.i.) mainly caused by the characteristic high (18)F-FET uptake of HGG in the initial phase. Therefore, when dynamic (18)F-FET-PET cannot be performed, early TBRmax assessment can be considered as an alternative for tumour grading.
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 Vander Borght; S Asenbaum; P Bartenstein; C Halldin; O Kapucu; K Van Laere; A Varrone; K Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Roelien H Enting; Mart A A M Heesters; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Ronald W J van Rheenen; Annemiek M E Walenkamp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lutz W Kracht; Hrvoje Miletic; Susanne Busch; Andreas H Jacobs; Jurgen Voges; Moritz Hoevels; Johannes C Klein; Karl Herholz; Wolf-D Heiss Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Nathalie L Jansen; Bogdana Suchorska; Silke B Schwarz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Juergen Lutz; Vera Graute; Peter Bartenstein; Claus Belka; Friedrich W Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Sabina Eigenbrod; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Andreas Zwergal; Maximilian Niyazi; Mark Drexler; Peter Bartenstein; Oliver Schnell; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Niklas Thon; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Olivia Kertels; Almuth F Kessler; Milena I Mihovilovic; Antje Stolzenburg; Thomas Linsenmann; Samuel Samnick; Stephanie Brändlein; Camelia Maria Monoranu; Ralf-Ingo Ernestus; Andreas K Buck; Mario Löhr; Constantin Lapa Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.488
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: 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: Daniel F Fleischmann; Marcus Unterrainer; Peter Bartenstein; Claus Belka; Nathalie L Albert; Maximilian Niyazi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 4.130