Antoine Verger1,2,3, Christian P Filss1,4, Philipp Lohmann1, Gabriele Stoffels1, Michael Sabel5, Hans J Wittsack6, Elena Rota Kops1, Norbert Galldiks1,7,8, Gereon R Fink1,7,8, Nadim J Shah1,9,10, Karl-Josef Langen11,12,13. 1. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3, -4), Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425, Jülich, Germany. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine & Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Lorraine University, Nancy, France. 3. IADI, INSERM, UMR 947, Lorraine University, Nancy, France. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 7. Department of Neurology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 8. Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), University of Cologne and Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 9. Department of Neurology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 10. Section JARA-Brain, Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Jülich, Germany. 11. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3, -4), Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425, Jülich, Germany. k.j.langen@fz-juelich.de. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. k.j.langen@fz-juelich.de. 13. Section JARA-Brain, Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Jülich, Germany. k.j.langen@fz-juelich.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Both perfusion-weighted MR imaging (PWI) and O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET (18F-FET) provide grading information in cerebral gliomas. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of 18F-FET PET and PWI for tumor grading in a series of patients with newly diagnosed, untreated gliomas using an integrated PET/MR scanner. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with untreated gliomas [22 low-grade gliomas (LGG), and 50 high-grade gliomas (HGG)] were investigated with 18F-FET PET and PWI using a hybrid PET/MR scanner. After visual inspection of PET and PWI maps (rCBV, rCBF, MTT), volumes of interest (VOIs) with a diameter of 16 mm were centered upon the maximum of abnormality in the tumor area in each modality and the contralateral unaffected hemisphere. Mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratios (TBRmean, TBRmax) were calculated. In addition, Time-to-Peak (TTP) and slopes of time-activity curves were calculated for 18F-FET PET. Diagnostic accuracies of 18F-FET PET and PWI for differentiating low-grade glioma (LGG) from high-grade glioma (HGG) were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analyses (area under the curve; AUC). RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FET PET and PWI to discriminate LGG from HGG was similar with highest AUC values for TBRmean and TBRmax of 18F-FET PET uptake (0.80, 0.83) and for TBRmean and TBRmax of rCBV (0.80, 0.81). In case of increased signal in the tumor area with both methods (n = 32), local hot-spots were incongruent in 25 patients (78%) with a mean distance of 10.6 ± 9.5 mm. Dynamic FET PET and combination of different parameters did not further improve diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Both 18F-FET PET and PWI discriminate LGG from HGG with similar diagnostic performance. Regional abnormalities in the tumor area are usually not congruent indicating that tumor grading by 18F-FET PET and PWI is based on different pathophysiological phenomena.
PURPOSE: Both perfusion-weighted MR imaging (PWI) and O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET (18F-FET) provide grading information in cerebral gliomas. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of 18F-FET PET and PWI for tumor grading in a series of patients with newly diagnosed, untreated gliomas using an integrated PET/MR scanner. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with untreated gliomas [22 low-grade gliomas (LGG), and 50 high-grade gliomas (HGG)] were investigated with 18F-FET PET and PWI using a hybrid PET/MR scanner. After visual inspection of PET and PWI maps (rCBV, rCBF, MTT), volumes of interest (VOIs) with a diameter of 16 mm were centered upon the maximum of abnormality in the tumor area in each modality and the contralateral unaffected hemisphere. Mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratios (TBRmean, TBRmax) were calculated. In addition, Time-to-Peak (TTP) and slopes of time-activity curves were calculated for 18F-FET PET. Diagnostic accuracies of 18F-FET PET and PWI for differentiating low-grade glioma (LGG) from high-grade glioma (HGG) were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analyses (area under the curve; AUC). RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FET PET and PWI to discriminate LGG from HGG was similar with highest AUC values for TBRmean and TBRmax of 18F-FET PET uptake (0.80, 0.83) and for TBRmean and TBRmax of rCBV (0.80, 0.81). In case of increased signal in the tumor area with both methods (n = 32), local hot-spots were incongruent in 25 patients (78%) with a mean distance of 10.6 ± 9.5 mm. Dynamic FET PET and combination of different parameters did not further improve diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Both 18F-FET PET and PWI discriminate LGG from HGG with similar diagnostic performance. Regional abnormalities in the tumor area are usually not congruent indicating that tumor grading by 18F-FET PET and PWI is based on different pathophysiological phenomena.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fet pet; Glioma; Grading; PET/MR imaging; Pwi
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
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: Kathleen M Schmainda; Melissa Prah; Jennifer Connelly; Scott D Rand; Raymond G Hoffman; Wade Mueller; Mark G Malkin Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Michael H Lev; Yelda Ozsunar; John W Henson; Amjad A Rasheed; Glenn D Barest; Griffith R Harsh; Markus M Fitzek; E Antonio Chiocca; James D Rabinov; Andrew N Csavoy; Bruce R Rosen; Fred H Hochberg; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.825
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: 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: Tineke van de Weijer; Martijn P G Broen; Rik P M Moonen; Ann Hoeben; Monique Anten; Koos Hovinga; Inge Compter; Jochem A J van der Pol; Cristina Mitea; Toine M Lodewick; Arnaud Jacquerie; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Alida A Postma Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Michael Lundemann; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Aida Muhic; Vibeke A Larsen; Hans S Poulsen; Svend-Aage Engelholm; Flemming L Andersen; Andreas Kjær; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law; Adam E Hansen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-02 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