Maria C Rossi Espagnet1,2, Andrea Romano1, Valeria Mancuso1, Francesco Cicone3, Antonio Napolitano4, Claudia Scaringi5, Giuseppe Minniti5, Alessandro Bozzao1. 1. 1 NESMOS Department, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. 2 Neuroradiology Unit, Imaging Department, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 3. 3 Unit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 4. 4 Enterprise Risk Management, Medical Physics Department, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 5. 5 Unit of Radiation Oncology, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare MRI using perfusion and diffusion techniques with 6-[(18)F]-fluoro-L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine ((18)F-FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) in the follow-up of low-grade gliomas (LGGs) and to identify the best imaging parameter to differentiate patients with different prognosis. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2015, 12 patients with a pathology-proven diagnosis of LGG and MR (with perfusion and diffusion sequences) and a PET study during their follow-up were retrospectively included in our study. Cerebral blood volume (CBV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps on MR studies and PET images were evaluated using a region of interest-based method. All patients were categorized as stable or as having progressive disease at 1-year follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's correlation test and multivariate analysis of variance (p < 0.05). RESULTS: No significant correlations were found between PET parameters [maximum tumour-to-controlateral normal brain ratio (T/Nmax) and tumour-to-striatum ratio] and ADC or relative CBV values measured in both PET hotspot regions and areas of maximum signal alterations. T/Nmax demonstrated a good sensitivity (83%) and specificity (100%) for differentiating two subgroups of patients with different outcomes at 1-year-follow-up (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Perfusion and diffusion MR images provide different information compared with (18)F-FDOPA PET in LGGs during follow-up and therefore, they should be considered as complementary tools in the evaluation of these tumours. (18)F-FDOPA PET showed a significant prognostic role in the follow-up of LGGs and appeared to be a better tool than MR advanced techniques for outcome prediction. These results need to be confirmed with longitudinal studies on a larger population. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study that compared (18)F-FDOPA PET with perfusion and diffusion MR in LGGs during follow-up. These preliminary results highlight the importance of a multimodality approach in this field and evidence a potential role for (18)F-FDOPA PET to predict patients at risk for tumour progression.
OBJECTIVE: To compare MRI using perfusion and diffusion techniques with 6-[(18)F]-fluoro-L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine ((18)F-FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) in the follow-up of low-grade gliomas (LGGs) and to identify the best imaging parameter to differentiate patients with different prognosis. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2015, 12 patients with a pathology-proven diagnosis of LGG and MR (with perfusion and diffusion sequences) and a PET study during their follow-up were retrospectively included in our study. Cerebral blood volume (CBV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps on MR studies and PET images were evaluated using a region of interest-based method. All patients were categorized as stable or as having progressive disease at 1-year follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's correlation test and multivariate analysis of variance (p < 0.05). RESULTS: No significant correlations were found between PET parameters [maximum tumour-to-controlateral normal brain ratio (T/Nmax) and tumour-to-striatum ratio] and ADC or relative CBV values measured in both PET hotspot regions and areas of maximum signal alterations. T/Nmax demonstrated a good sensitivity (83%) and specificity (100%) for differentiating two subgroups of patients with different outcomes at 1-year-follow-up (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Perfusion and diffusion MR images provide different information compared with (18)F-FDOPA PET in LGGs during follow-up and therefore, they should be considered as complementary tools in the evaluation of these tumours. (18)F-FDOPA PET showed a significant prognostic role in the follow-up of LGGs and appeared to be a better tool than MR advanced techniques for outcome prediction. These results need to be confirmed with longitudinal studies on a larger population. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study that compared (18)F-FDOPA PET with perfusion and diffusion MR in LGGs during follow-up. These preliminary results highlight the importance of a multimodality approach in this field and evidence a potential role for (18)F-FDOPA PET to predict patients at risk for tumour progression.
Authors: Francesco Cicone; Christian P Filss; Giuseppe Minniti; Camilla Rossi-Espagnet; Annalisa Papa; Claudia Scaringi; Norbert Galldiks; Alessandro Bozzao; N Jon Shah; Francesco Scopinaro; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frederic G Dhermain; Peter Hau; Heinrich Lanfermann; Andreas H Jacobs; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: M J van den Bent; J S Wefel; D Schiff; M J B Taphoorn; K Jaeckle; L Junck; T Armstrong; A Choucair; A D Waldman; T Gorlia; M Chamberlain; B G Baumert; M A Vogelbaum; D R Macdonald; D A Reardon; P Y Wen; S M Chang; A H Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nasuda Danchaivijitr; Adam D Waldman; Daniel J Tozer; Christopher E Benton; Gisele Brasil Caseiras; Paul S Tofts; Jeremy H Rees; H Rolf Jäger Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Deanna H Pafundi; Nadia N Laack; Ryan S Youland; Ian F Parney; Val J Lowe; Caterina Giannini; Brad J Kemp; Michael P Grams; Jonathan M Morris; Jason M Hoover; Leland S Hu; Jann N Sarkaria; Debra H Brinkmann Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-03-03 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Christopher Bell; Nicholas Dowson; Simon Puttick; Yaniv Gal; Paul Thomas; Mike Fay; Jye Smith; Stephen Rose Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: A Verger; Ph Metellus; Q Sala; C Colin; E Bialecki; D Taieb; O Chinot; D Figarella-Branger; E Guedj Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: L C Bell; M D Does; A M Stokes; L C Baxter; K M Schmainda; A C Dueck; C C Quarles Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Francesco Cicone; Luciano Carideo; Claudia Scaringi; Andrea Romano; Marcelo Mamede; Annalisa Papa; Anna Tofani; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini; Alessandro Bozzao; Francesco Scopinaro; Giuseppe Minniti Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Jingwen Yao; Talia C Oughourlian; Akifumi Hagiwara; Chencai Wang; Catalina Raymond; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Noriko Salamon; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 10.782