Background: Few data exist regarding the prognostic value of L-[S-methyl-11C]methionine (MET) PET for treatment-naïve gliomas. Methods: A total of 160 glioma patients (89 men, 71 women; mean age: 45, range 18-84 y) underwent a MET PET prior to any therapy. The PET scans were evaluated visually and semiquantitatively by tumor-to-background (T/N) ratio thresholds chosen by analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Additionally, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1-R132H (IDH1-R132H) immunohistochemistry was performed. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier estimates and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Significantly shorter mean survival times (7.2 vs 8.6 y; P = 0.024) were seen in patients with amino acid avid gliomas (n = 137) compared with visually negative tumors (n = 33) in MET PET. T/N ratio thresholds of 2.1 and 3.5 were significantly associated with survival (10.3 vs 7 vs 4.3 y; P < 0.001). Mean survival differed significantly using the median T/N ratio of 2.4 as cutoff, independent of histopathology (P < 0.01; mean survival: 10.2 ± 0.8 y vs 5.5 ± 0.6 y). In the subgroup of 142 glioma patients characterized by IDH1-R132H status, METT/N ratio demonstrated a significant prognostic impact in IDH1-R132H wildtype astrocytomas and glioblastoma (P = 0.001). Additionally, multivariate testing revealed semiquantitative MET PET as an independent prognostic parameter for treatment-naïve glioma patients without (P = 0.031) and with IDH1-R132H characterization of gliomas (P = 0.024; odds ratio 1.57). Conclusion: This retrospective analysis demonstrates the value of MET PET as a prognostic parameter on survival in treatment-naïve glioma patients.
Background: Few data exist regarding the prognostic value of L-[S-methyl-11C]methionine (MET) PET for treatment-naïve gliomas. Methods: A total of 160 gliomapatients (89 men, 71 women; mean age: 45, range 18-84 y) underwent a MET PET prior to any therapy. The PET scans were evaluated visually and semiquantitatively by tumor-to-background (T/N) ratio thresholds chosen by analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Additionally, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1-R132H (IDH1-R132H) immunohistochemistry was performed. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier estimates and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Significantly shorter mean survival times (7.2 vs 8.6 y; P = 0.024) were seen in patients with amino acid avid gliomas (n = 137) compared with visually negative tumors (n = 33) in MET PET. T/N ratio thresholds of 2.1 and 3.5 were significantly associated with survival (10.3 vs 7 vs 4.3 y; P < 0.001). Mean survival differed significantly using the median T/N ratio of 2.4 as cutoff, independent of histopathology (P < 0.01; mean survival: 10.2 ± 0.8 y vs 5.5 ± 0.6 y). In the subgroup of 142 gliomapatients characterized by IDH1-R132H status, METT/N ratio demonstrated a significant prognostic impact in IDH1-R132H wildtype astrocytomas and glioblastoma (P = 0.001). Additionally, multivariate testing revealed semiquantitative MET PET as an independent prognostic parameter for treatment-naïve gliomapatients without (P = 0.031) and with IDH1-R132H characterization of gliomas (P = 0.024; odds ratio 1.57). Conclusion: This retrospective analysis demonstrates the value of MET PET as a prognostic parameter on survival in treatment-naïve gliomapatients.
Authors: D Ribom; A Eriksson; M Hartman; H Engler; A Nilsson; B Långström; H Bolander; M Bergström; A Smits Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Lutz W Kracht; Hrvoje Miletic; Susanne Busch; Andreas H Jacobs; Jurgen Voges; Moritz Hoevels; Johannes C Klein; Karl Herholz; Wolf-D Heiss Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Niklas Thon; Mathias Kunz; Lena Lemke; Nathalie L Jansen; Sabina Eigenbrod; Simone Kreth; Jürgen Lutz; Rupert Egensperger; Armin Giese; Jochen Herms; Michael Weller; Hans Kretzschmar; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Christian la Fougère; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Sabina Eigenbrod; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Andreas Zwergal; Maximilian Niyazi; Mark Drexler; Peter Bartenstein; Oliver Schnell; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Niklas Thon; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sidsel Højklint Poulsen; Thomas Urup; Kirsten Grunnet; Ib Jarle Christensen; Vibeke Andrée Larsen; Michael Lundemann Jensen; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Hans Skovgaard Poulsen; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Lutz W Kracht; Frank Berthold; Hrvoje Miletic; Johannes C Klein; Karl Herholz; Andreas H Jacobs; Wolf-Dieter Heiss Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-07-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Eva Rainer; Hao Wang; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Georg Widhalm; Barbara Fueger; Jingling Chang; Zhaohui Zhu; Christine Marosi; Alexander Haug; Marcus Hacker; Shuren Li Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bart R J van Dijken; Alfred O Ankrah; Gilles N Stormezand; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Peter Jan van Laar; Anouk van der Hoorn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240