Antoine Verger1,2,3,4, Gabriele Stoffels5, Elena K Bauer6, Philipp Lohmann5, Tobias Blau7, Gereon R Fink5,6, Bernd Neumaier5, Nadim J Shah5,8,9, Karl-Josef Langen5,9,10, Norbert Galldiks5,6,11. 1. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3, INM-4, INM-5), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany. a.verger@chru-nancy.fr. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine & Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Lorraine University, Nancy, France. a.verger@chru-nancy.fr. 3. IADI, INSERM, UMR 947, Lorraine University, Nancy, France. a.verger@chru-nancy.fr. 4. Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Rue du Morvan, 54500, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. a.verger@chru-nancy.fr. 5. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3, INM-4, INM-5), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany. 6. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. Department of Neuropathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 8. Department of Neurology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 9. Section JARA-Brain, Juelich-Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Juelich, Germany. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 11. Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), Universities of Cologne and Bonn, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The molecular features isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion have gained major importance for both glioma typing and prognosis and have, therefore, been integrated in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2016. The aim of this study was to characterize static and dynamic O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET) PET parameters in gliomas with or without IDH mutation or 1p/19q co-deletion. METHODS: Ninety patients with newly diagnosed and untreated gliomas with a static and dynamic 18F-FET PET scan prior to evaluation of tumor tissue according to the 2016 WHO classification were identified retrospectively. Mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratios (TBRmean/max), as well as dynamic parameters (time-to-peak and slope) of 18F-FET uptake were calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen (18%) oligodendrogliomas (IDH mutated, 1p/19q co-deleted), 27 (30%) astrocytomas (IDH mutated only), and 47 (52%) glioblastomas (IDH wild type only) were identified. TBRmean, TBRmax, TTP and slope discriminated between IDH mutated astrocytomas and IDH wild type glioblastomas (P < 0.01). TBRmean showed the best diagnostic performance (cut-off 1.95; sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 67%; accuracy, 81%). None of the parameters discriminated between oligodendrogliomas (IDH mutated, 1p/19q co-deleted) and glioblastomas or astrocytomas. Furthermore, TBRmean, TBRmax, TTP, and slope discriminated between gliomas with and without IDH mutation (p < 0.01). The best diagnostic performance was obtained for the combination of TTP with TBRmax or slope (accuracy, 73%). CONCLUSION: Data suggest that static and dynamic 18F-FET PET parameters may allow determining non-invasively the IDH mutation status. However, IDH mutated and 1p/19q co-deleted oligodendrogliomas cannot be differentiated from glioblastomas and astrocytomas by 18F-FET PET.
PURPOSE: The molecular features isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion have gained major importance for both glioma typing and prognosis and have, therefore, been integrated in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2016. The aim of this study was to characterize static and dynamic O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET) PET parameters in gliomas with or without IDH mutation or 1p/19q co-deletion. METHODS: Ninety patients with newly diagnosed and untreated gliomas with a static and dynamic 18F-FET PET scan prior to evaluation of tumor tissue according to the 2016 WHO classification were identified retrospectively. Mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratios (TBRmean/max), as well as dynamic parameters (time-to-peak and slope) of 18F-FET uptake were calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen (18%) oligodendrogliomas (IDH mutated, 1p/19q co-deleted), 27 (30%) astrocytomas (IDH mutated only), and 47 (52%) glioblastomas (IDH wild type only) were identified. TBRmean, TBRmax, TTP and slope discriminated between IDH mutated astrocytomas and IDH wild type glioblastomas (P < 0.01). TBRmean showed the best diagnostic performance (cut-off 1.95; sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 67%; accuracy, 81%). None of the parameters discriminated between oligodendrogliomas (IDH mutated, 1p/19q co-deleted) and glioblastomas or astrocytomas. Furthermore, TBRmean, TBRmax, TTP, and slope discriminated between gliomas with and without IDH mutation (p < 0.01). The best diagnostic performance was obtained for the combination of TTP with TBRmax or slope (accuracy, 73%). CONCLUSION: Data suggest that static and dynamic 18F-FET PET parameters may allow determining non-invasively the IDH mutation status. However, IDH mutated and 1p/19q co-deleted oligodendrogliomas cannot be differentiated from glioblastomas and astrocytomas by 18F-FET PET.
Entities:
Keywords:
1p/19q co-deletion; FET pet; Glioma; IDH mutation
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Vera Graute; Lena Armbruster; Bogdana Suchorska; Juergen Lutz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Frank W Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Michael Sabel; Gabriele Stoffels; Guido Reifenberger; Markus J Riemenschneider; Paul Jansen; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Jakob Steiger; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Adriana Olar; Khalida M Wani; Kristin D Alfaro-Munoz; Lindsey E Heathcock; Hinke F van Thuijl; Mark R Gilbert; Terri S Armstrong; Erik P Sulman; Daniel P Cahill; Elizabeth Vera-Bolanos; Ying Yuan; Jaap C Reijneveld; Bauke Ylstra; Pieter Wesseling; Kenneth D Aldape Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2015-02-21 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: 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: Manuel Röhrich; Kristin Huang; Daniel Schrimpf; Nathalie L Albert; Thomas Hielscher; Andreas von Deimling; Ulrich Schüller; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Olivia Kertels; Almuth F Kessler; Milena I Mihovilovic; Antje Stolzenburg; Thomas Linsenmann; Samuel Samnick; Stephanie Brändlein; Camelia Maria Monoranu; Ralf-Ingo Ernestus; Andreas K Buck; Mario Löhr; Constantin Lapa Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Aliaksandra Shymanskaya; Wieland A Worthoff; Gabriele Stoffels; Johannes Lindemeyer; Bernd Neumaier; Philipp Lohmann; Norbert Galldiks; Karl-Josef Langen; N Jon Shah Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Manuel Röhrich; Anastasia Loktev; Annika K Wefers; Annette Altmann; Daniel Paech; Sebastian Adeberg; Paul Windisch; Thomas Hielscher; Paul Flechsig; Ralf Floca; Dominik Leitz; Julius P Schuster; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Andreas von Deimling; Thomas Lindner; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 9.236