Jens Göttler1,2, Mathias Lukas3, Anne Kluge4, Stephan Kaczmarz4, Jens Gempt5, Florian Ringel5, Mona Mustafa3, Bernhard Meyer5, Claus Zimmer4, Markus Schwaiger3, Stefan Förster6,3,7, Christine Preibisch4,6, Thomas Pyka3. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. jens.goettler@tum.de. 2. TUM Neuroimaging Center (TUM-NIC), Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. jens.goettler@tum.de. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 6. TUM Neuroimaging Center (TUM-NIC), Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Bayreuth, Preuschwitzer Str. 101, 95445, Bayreuth, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 18F-fluorethyltyrosine-(FET)-PET and MRI-based relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) have both been used to characterize gliomas. Recently, inter-individual correlations between peak static FET-uptake and rCBV have been reported. Herein, we assess the local intra-lesional relation between FET-PET parameters and rCBV. METHODS: Thirty untreated glioma patients (27 high-grade) underwent simultaneous PET/MRI on a 3 T hybrid scanner obtaining structural and dynamic susceptibility contrast sequences. Static FET-uptake and dynamic FET-slope were correlated with rCBV within tumour hotspots across patients and intra-lesionally using a mixed-effects model to account for inter-individual variation. Furthermore, maximal congruency of tumour volumes defined by FET-uptake and rCBV was determined. RESULTS: While the inter-individual relationship between peak static FET-uptake and rCBV could be confirmed, our intra-lesional, voxel-wise analysis revealed significant positive correlations (median r = 0.374, p < 0.0001). Similarly, significant inter- and intra-individual correlations were observed between FET-slope and rCBV. However, rCBV explained only 12% of the static and 5% of the dynamic FET-PET variance and maximal overlap of respective tumour volumes was 37% on average. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the relation between peak values of MR-based rCBV and static FET-uptake can also be observed intra-individually on a voxel basis and also applies to a dynamic FET parameter, possibly determining hotspots of higher biological malignancy. However, just a small part of the FET-PET signal variance is explained by rCBV and tumour volumes determined by the two modalities showed only moderate overlap. These findings indicate that FET-PET and MR-based rCBV provide both congruent and complimentary information on glioma biology.
PURPOSE: 18F-fluorethyltyrosine-(FET)-PET and MRI-based relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) have both been used to characterize gliomas. Recently, inter-individual correlations between peak static FET-uptake and rCBV have been reported. Herein, we assess the local intra-lesional relation between FET-PET parameters and rCBV. METHODS: Thirty untreated gliomapatients (27 high-grade) underwent simultaneous PET/MRI on a 3 T hybrid scanner obtaining structural and dynamic susceptibility contrast sequences. Static FET-uptake and dynamic FET-slope were correlated with rCBV within tumour hotspots across patients and intra-lesionally using a mixed-effects model to account for inter-individual variation. Furthermore, maximal congruency of tumour volumes defined by FET-uptake and rCBV was determined. RESULTS: While the inter-individual relationship between peak static FET-uptake and rCBV could be confirmed, our intra-lesional, voxel-wise analysis revealed significant positive correlations (median r = 0.374, p < 0.0001). Similarly, significant inter- and intra-individual correlations were observed between FET-slope and rCBV. However, rCBV explained only 12% of the static and 5% of the dynamic FET-PET variance and maximal overlap of respective tumour volumes was 37% on average. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the relation between peak values of MR-based rCBV and static FET-uptake can also be observed intra-individually on a voxel basis and also applies to a dynamic FET parameter, possibly determining hotspots of higher biological malignancy. However, just a small part of the FET-PET signal variance is explained by rCBV and tumour volumes determined by the two modalities showed only moderate overlap. These findings indicate that FET-PET and MR-based rCBV provide both congruent and complimentary information on glioma biology.
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Isabel Winkelmann; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Erik Mille; Andrei Todica; Matthias Brendel; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Peter Bartenstein; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Joanna J Phillips; Rupa Parvataneni; Annette Molinaro; Emma Essock-Burns; Gabriela Bourne; Andrew T Parsa; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.300
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: 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: Frank Thiele; Julia Ehmer; Marc D Piroth; Michael J Eble; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Juergen Kaiser; Wolfgang M Schaefer; Ulrich Buell; Christian Boy Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Antoine Girard; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Alice Metais; Beatrice Carsin Nicol; Dan Cristian Chiforeanu; Elise Bannier; Boris Campillo-Gimenez; Anne Devillers; Xavier Palard-Novello; Florence Le Jeune Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 4.130
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: Brigitte Fuenfgeld; Philipp Mächler; Dorothee R Fischer; Giuseppe Esposito; Elisabeth Jane Rushing; Philipp A Kaufmann; Paul Stolzmann; Martin W Huellner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eike Steidl; Karl-Josef Langen; Sarah Abu Hmeidan; Nenad Polomac; Christian P Filss; Norbert Galldiks; Philipp Lohmann; Fee Keil; Katharina Filipski; Felix M Mottaghy; Nadim Jon Shah; Joachim P Steinbach; Elke Hattingen; Gabriele D Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lena Vomacka; Marcus Unterrainer; Adrien Holzgreve; Erik Mille; Astrid Gosewisch; Julia Brosch; Sibylle Ziegler; Bogdana Suchorska; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Peter Bartenstein; Nathalie Lisa Albert; Guido Böning Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.138