Martin A Lodge1, Matthias Holdhoff2, Jeffrey P Leal3, Asim K Bag4, L Burt Nabors4, Akiva Mintz5, Glenn J Lesser5, David A Mankoff6, Arati S Desai6, James M Mountz7, Frank S Lieberman7, Joy D Fisher2, Serena Desideri2, Xiaobu Ye2, Stuart A Grossman2, David Schiff8, Richard L Wahl3,2. 1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland mlodge1@jhmi.edu. 2. Brain Cancer Program, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina. 6. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and. 8. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Abstract
Quantitative 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) PET has potential as a noninvasive tumor biomarker for the objective assessment of response to treatment. To guide interpretation of these quantitative data, we evaluated the repeatability of 18F-FLT PET as part of a multicenter trial involving patients with high-grade glioma. Methods: 18F-FLT PET was performed on 10 patients with recurrent high-grade glioma at 5 different institutions within the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium trial ABTC1101. Data were acquired according to a double baseline protocol in which PET examinations were repeated within 2 d of each other with no intervening treatment. On each of the 2 imaging days, dedicated brain PET was performed at 2 time points, 1 and 3 h after 18F-FLT administration. Tumor SUVs and related parameters were measured at a central laboratory using various volumes of interest: isocontour at 30% of the maximum pixel (SUVmean_30%), gradient-based segmentation (SUVmean_gradient), the maximum pixel (SUVmax), and a 1-mL sphere at the region of highest uptake (SUVpeak). Repeatability coefficients (RCs) were calculated from the relative differences between corresponding SUV measurements obtained on the 2 d. Results: RCs for tumor SUVs were 22.5% (SUVmean_30%), 23.8% (SUVmean_gradient), 23.2% (SUVmax), and 18.5% (SUVpeak) at 1 h after injection. Corresponding data at 3 h were 22.4%, 25.0%, 27.3%, and 23.6%. Normalizing the tumor SUV data with reference to a background region improved repeatability, and the most stable parameter was the tumor-to-background ratio derived using SUVpeak (RC, 16.5%). Conclusion: SUV quantification of 18F-FLT uptake in glioma had an RC in the range of 18%-24% when imaging began 1 h after 18F-FLT administration. The volume-of-interest methodology had a small but not negligible influence on repeatability, with the best performance obtained using SUVpeak Although changes in 18F-FLT SUV after treatment cannot be directly interpreted as a change in tumor proliferation, we have established ranges beyond which SUV differences are likely due to legitimate biologic effects.
Quantitative 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) PET has potential as a noninvasive tumor biomarker for the objective assessment of response to treatment. To guide interpretation of these quantitative data, we evaluated the repeatability of 18F-FLT PET as part of a multicenter trial involving patients with high-grade glioma. Methods: 18F-FLT PET was performed on 10 patients with recurrent high-grade glioma at 5 different institutions within the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium trial ABTC1101. Data were acquired according to a double baseline protocol in which PET examinations were repeated within 2 d of each other with no intervening treatment. On each of the 2 imaging days, dedicated brain PET was performed at 2 time points, 1 and 3 h after 18F-FLT administration. Tumor SUVs and related parameters were measured at a central laboratory using various volumes of interest: isocontour at 30% of the maximum pixel (SUVmean_30%), gradient-based segmentation (SUVmean_gradient), the maximum pixel (SUVmax), and a 1-mL sphere at the region of highest uptake (SUVpeak). Repeatability coefficients (RCs) were calculated from the relative differences between corresponding SUV measurements obtained on the 2 d. Results: RCs for tumor SUVs were 22.5% (SUVmean_30%), 23.8% (SUVmean_gradient), 23.2% (SUVmax), and 18.5% (SUVpeak) at 1 h after injection. Corresponding data at 3 h were 22.4%, 25.0%, 27.3%, and 23.6%. Normalizing the tumor SUV data with reference to a background region improved repeatability, and the most stable parameter was the tumor-to-background ratio derived using SUVpeak (RC, 16.5%). Conclusion: SUV quantification of 18F-FLT uptake in glioma had an RC in the range of 18%-24% when imaging began 1 h after 18F-FLT administration. The volume-of-interest methodology had a small but not negligible influence on repeatability, with the best performance obtained using SUVpeak Although changes in 18F-FLT SUV after treatment cannot be directly interpreted as a change in tumor proliferation, we have established ranges beyond which SUV differences are likely due to legitimate biologic effects.
Authors: Nanda C Krak; R Boellaard; Otto S Hoekstra; Jos W R Twisk; Corneline J Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Esther G C Troost; Johan Bussink; Aswin L Hoffmann; Otto C Boerman; Wim J G Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christiaan Schiepers; Magnus Dahlbom; Wei Chen; Timothy Cloughesy; Johannes Czernin; Michael E Phelps; Sung-Cheng Huang Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andreas H Jacobs; Anne Thomas; Lutz W Kracht; Huongfeng Li; Claus Dittmar; Guido Garlip; Norbert Galldiks; Johannes C Klein; Jan Sobesky; Rüdiger Hilker; Stefan Vollmar; Karl Herholz; Klaus Wienhard; Wolf-Dieter Heiss Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Hinrich A Wieder; Andreas K Buck; Marion Schöffel; Bernd-Joachim Krause; Falko Fend; Tibor Schuster; Christian Meyer zum Büschenfelde; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Justus Duyster; Christian Peschel; Markus Schwaiger; Tobias Dechow Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Adrianus J de Langen; Bianca Klabbers; Mark Lubberink; Ronald Boellaard; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Ben J Slotman; Remco de Bree; Egbert F Smit; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hee-Jung Sohn; You-Jung Yang; Jin-Sook Ryu; Seung Jun Oh; Ki Chun Im; Dae Hyuk Moon; Dae Ho Lee; Cheolwon Suh; Jung-Shin Lee; Sang-We Kim Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Benjamin B Kasten; Ke Jiang; Denzel Cole; Aditi Jani; Neha Udayakumar; G Yancey Gillespie; Guolan Lu; Tingting Dai; Eben L Rosenthal; James M Markert; Jianghong Rao; Jason M Warram Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Joseph R Osborne; Teja M Kalidindi; Blesida J Punzalan; Kishore Gangangari; Daniel E Spratt; Wolfgang A Weber; Steven M Larson; Naga Vara Kishore Pillarsetty Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Matthias Holdhoff; Xiaobu Ye; Jeffrey G Supko; Louis B Nabors; Arati S Desai; Tobias Walbert; Glenn J Lesser; William L Read; Frank S Lieberman; Martin A Lodge; Jeffrey Leal; Joy D Fisher; Serena Desideri; Stuart A Grossman; Richard L Wahl; David Schiff Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: G M Kramer; Y Liu; A J de Langen; E P Jansma; I Trigonis; M-C Asselin; A Jackson; L Kenny; E O Aboagye; O S Hoekstra; R Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Benjamin B Kasten; Neha Udayakumar; Jianmei W Leavenworth; Anna M Wu; Suzanne E Lapi; Jonathan E McConathy; Anna G Sorace; Asim K Bag; James M Markert; Jason M Warram Journal: Theranostics Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Cyrillo G Brahm; Martha W den Hollander; Roelien H Enting; Jan Cees de Groot; A Millad Solouki; Wilfred F A den Dunnen; Mart A A M Heesters; Michiel Wagemakers; Henk M W Verheul; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Jan Pruim; Annemiek M E Walenkamp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ella F Jones; John M Buatti; Hui-Kuo Shu; Richard L Wahl; Brenda F Kurland; Hannah M Linden; David A Mankoff; Daniel L Rubin; Darrell Tata; Robert J Nordstrom; Lubomir Hadjiyski; Matthias Holdhoff; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-06