Maciej Harat1, Bogdan Małkowski2, Roman Makarewicz3. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, The Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Department of Oncology and Brachytherapy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland. Electronic address: haratm@co.bydgoszcz.pl. 2. Department of Positron Emission Tomography and Molecular Imaging, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland. 3. Department of Oncology and Brachytherapy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Department of Oncology and Brachytherapy, The Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is suboptimal. We analysed pre-treatment MRI- and dual time-point 18F-fluoroethylthyrosine-PET (FET-PET)-based target volumes and GBM recurrence patterns following radiotherapy with temozolomide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with primary GBM were treated according to MRI-based treatment volumes (GTVRM). Patients underwent dual time-point FET-PET scans prior to treatment, and biological tumour volumes (GTVPET) were contoured but not used for target definition. Progressions were classified based on location of primary GTVs. Volume and uniformity of MRI- vs. FET-PET/CT-derived GTVs and progression patterns assessed by MRI were analysed. RESULTS: FET-based GTVs measured 10min after radionuclide injection (a.r.i.; median 37.3cm(3)) were larger than GTVs measured 60min a.r.i. (median 27.7cm(3)). GTVPET volumes were significantly larger than corresponding MRI-based GTVs. MRI and PET concordance for the identification of glioblastoma GTVs was poor (mean uniformity index 0.4). 74% of failures were inside primary GTVPET volumes, with no solitary progressions inside the MRI-defined margin +20mm but outside the GTVPET detected. CONCLUSIONS: The size and geometry of GTVs differed in the majority of patients. The GTVPET volume depends on time after radionuclide injection. FET-PET better defined failure site than MRI alone.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is suboptimal. We analysed pre-treatment MRI- and dual time-point 18F-fluoroethylthyrosine-PET (FET-PET)-based target volumes and GBM recurrence patterns following radiotherapy with temozolomide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with primary GBM were treated according to MRI-based treatment volumes (GTVRM). Patients underwent dual time-point FET-PET scans prior to treatment, and biological tumour volumes (GTVPET) were contoured but not used for target definition. Progressions were classified based on location of primary GTVs. Volume and uniformity of MRI- vs. FET-PET/CT-derived GTVs and progression patterns assessed by MRI were analysed. RESULTS: FET-based GTVs measured 10min after radionuclide injection (a.r.i.; median 37.3cm(3)) were larger than GTVs measured 60min a.r.i. (median 27.7cm(3)). GTVPET volumes were significantly larger than corresponding MRI-based GTVs. MRI and PET concordance for the identification of glioblastoma GTVs was poor (mean uniformity index 0.4). 74% of failures were inside primary GTVPET volumes, with no solitary progressions inside the MRI-defined margin +20mm but outside the GTVPET detected. CONCLUSIONS: The size and geometry of GTVs differed in the majority of patients. The GTVPET volume depends on time after radionuclide injection. FET-PET better defined failure site than MRI alone.
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yi Lao; Dan Ruan; April Vassantachart; Zhaoyang Fan; Jason C Ye; Eric L Chang; Robert Chin; Tania Kaprealian; Gabriel Zada; Mark S Shiroishi; Ke Sheng; Wensha Yang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Maciej Harat; Bogdan Małkowski; Izabela Wiatrowska; Roman Makarewicz; Krzysztof Roszkowski Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 4.003