Ryan S Youland1, Deanna H Pafundi2, Debra H Brinkmann2, Val J Lowe3, Jonathan M Morris4, Bradley J Kemp3, Christopher H Hunt4, Caterina Giannini5, Ian F Parney6, Nadia N Laack2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Youland.Ryan@Mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 4. Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Abstract
Treatment-related changes can be difficult to differentiate from progressive glioma using MRI with contrast (CE). The purpose of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-DOPA-PET and MRI in patients with recurrent glioma. Thirteen patients with MRI findings suspicious for recurrent glioma were prospectively enrolled and underwent 18F-DOPA-PET and MRI for neurosurgical planning. Stereotactic biopsies were obtained from regions of concordant and discordant PET and MRI CE, all within regions of T2/FLAIR signal hyperintensity. The sensitivity and specificity of 18F-DOPA-PET and CE were calculated based on histopathologic analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed optimal tumor to normal (T/N) and SUVmax thresholds. In the 37 specimens obtained, 51% exhibited MRI contrast enhancement (M+) and 78% demonstrated 18F-DOPA-PET avidity (P+). Imaging characteristics included M-P- in 16%, M-P+ in 32%, M+P+ in 46% and M+P- in 5%. Histopathologic review of biopsies revealed grade II components in 16%, grade III in 43%, grade IV in 30% and no tumor in 11%. MRI CE sensitivity for recurrent tumor was 52% and specificity was 50%. PET sensitivity for tumor was 82% and specificity was 50%. A T/N threshold > 2.0 altered sensitivity to 76% and specificity to 100% and SUVmax > 1.36 improved sensitivity and specificity to 94 and 75%, respectively. 18F-DOPA-PET can provide increased sensitivity and specificity compared with MRI CE for visualizing the spatial distribution of recurrent gliomas. Future studies will incorporate 18F-DOPA-PET into re-irradiation target volume delineation for RT planning.
Treatment-related changes can be difficult to differentiate from progressive glioma using MRI with contrast (CE). The purpn>ose of this study is to compare the sensitivity and spn>ecificity of n>an class="Chemical">18F-DOPA-PET and MRI in patients with recurrent glioma. Thirteen patients with MRI findings suspicious for recurrent glioma were prospectively enrolled and underwent 18F-DOPA-PET and MRI for neurosurgical planning. Stereotactic biopsies were obtained from regions of concordant and discordant PET and MRI CE, all within regions of T2/FLAIR signal hyperintensity. The sensitivity and specificity of 18F-DOPA-PET and CE were calculated based on histopathologic analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed optimal tumor to normal (T/N) and SUVmax thresholds. In the 37 specimens obtained, 51% exhibited MRI contrast enhancement (M+) and 78% demonstrated 18F-DOPA-PET avidity (P+). Imaging characteristics included M-P- in 16%, M-P+ in 32%, M+P+ in 46% and M+P- in 5%. Histopathologic review of biopsies revealed grade II components in 16%, grade III in 43%, grade IV in 30% and no tumor in 11%. MRI CE sensitivity for recurrent tumor was 52% and specificity was 50%. PET sensitivity for tumor was 82% and specificity was 50%. A T/N threshold > 2.0 altered sensitivity to 76% and specificity to 100% and SUVmax > 1.36 improved sensitivity and specificity to 94 and 75%, respectively. 18F-DOPA-PET can provide increased sensitivity and specificity compared with MRI CE for visualizing the spatial distribution of recurrent gliomas. Future studies will incorporate 18F-DOPA-PET into re-irradiation target volume delineation for RT planning.
Authors: Agostino Chiaravalloti; Alessandro Fiorentini; Veronica Villani; Carmine Carapella; Andrea Pace; Barbara Di Pietro; Carmen Di Russo; Barbara Palumbo; Roberto Floris; Orazio Schillaci Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Mark E Oppenlander; Andrew B Wolf; Laura A Snyder; Robert Bina; Jeffrey R Wilson; Stephen W Coons; Lynn S Ashby; David Brachman; Peter Nakaji; Randall W Porter; Kris A Smith; Robert F Spetzler; Nader Sanai Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Javier Arbizu; S Tejada; J M Marti-Climent; R Diez-Valle; E Prieto; G Quincoces; C Vigil; M A Idoate; J L Zubieta; I Peñuelas; J A Richter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ryan S Youland; David A Schomas; Paul D Brown; Chika Nwachukwu; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Ian F Parney; Nadia N Laack Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Edward G Shaw; Meihua Wang; Stephen W Coons; David G Brachman; Jan C Buckner; Keith J Stelzer; Geoffrey R Barger; Paul D Brown; Mark R Gilbert; Minesh P Mehta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Madison R Hansen; Edward Pan; Andrew Wilson; Morgan McCreary; Yeqi Wang; Thomas Stanley; Marco C Pinho; Xiaohu Guo; Darin T Okuda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654