Cornelia Brendle1, Johann-Martin Hempel2, Jens Schittenhelm3, Marco Skardelly4, Gerald Reischl5, Benjamin Bender2, Ulrike Ernemann2, Christian la Fougère6, Uwe Klose2. 1. Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. cornelia.brendle@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 3. Neuropathology, Department of Pathology and Neuropathology, Eberhard Karls University, Liebermeistersstraße 8, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 4. University Hospital for Neurosurgery, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 5. Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Eberhard Karls University, Roentgenweg 13, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 6. Nuclear Nedicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Otfried-Mueller-Straße 14, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion and 11C-methionine positron emission tomography (MET-PET) for glioma grading is currently not standardized. The purpose of this study was to identify regions of interest (ROIs) that enable the best performance and clinical applicability in both methods, as well as to evaluate the complementarity of DSC perfusion and MET-PET in spatial hotspot definition. METHODS: In 41 patient PET/MRI datasets, different ROIs were drawn: in T2-hyperintense tumour, in T2-hyperintense tumour and adjacent oedema and in tumour areas with contrast enhancement, altered perfusion or pathological radiotracer uptake. The performance of DSC perfusion and MET-PET using the different ROIs to distinguish high- and low-grade gliomas was assessed. The spatial overlap of hotspots identified by DSC perfusion and MET-PET was assessed visually. RESULTS: ROIs in T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequence-hyperintense tumour revealed the most significant differences between high- and low-grade gliomas and reached the highest diagnostic performance in both DSC perfusion (p = 0.046; area under the curve = 0.74) and MET-PET (p = 0.007; area under the curve = 0.80). The combination of methods yielded an area under the curve of 0.80. Hotspots were completely overlapped in one half of the patients, partially overlapped in one third of the patients and present in only one method in approximately 20% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: For multi-parametric examinations with DSC perfusion and MET-PET, we recommend an ROI definition based on T2-hyperintense tumour. DSC perfusion and MET-PET contain complementary information concerning the spatial hotspot definition.
PURPOSE: The use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion and 11C-methionine positron emission tomography (MET-PET) for glioma grading is currently not standardized. The purpose of this study was to identify regions of interest (ROIs) that enable the best performance and clinical applicability in both methods, as well as to evaluate the complementarity of DSC perfusion and MET-PET in spatial hotspot definition. METHODS: In 41 patient PET/MRI datasets, different ROIs were drawn: in T2-hyperintense tumour, in T2-hyperintense tumour and adjacent oedema and in tumour areas with contrast enhancement, altered perfusion or pathological radiotracer uptake. The performance of DSC perfusion and MET-PET using the different ROIs to distinguish high- and low-grade gliomas was assessed. The spatial overlap of hotspots identified by DSC perfusion and MET-PET was assessed visually. RESULTS: ROIs in T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequence-hyperintense tumour revealed the most significant differences between high- and low-grade gliomas and reached the highest diagnostic performance in both DSC perfusion (p = 0.046; area under the curve = 0.74) and MET-PET (p = 0.007; area under the curve = 0.80). The combination of methods yielded an area under the curve of 0.80. Hotspots were completely overlapped in one half of the patients, partially overlapped in one third of the patients and present in only one method in approximately 20% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: For multi-parametric examinations with DSC perfusion and MET-PET, we recommend an ROI definition based on T2-hyperintense tumour. DSC perfusion and MET-PET contain complementary information concerning the spatial hotspot definition.
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: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Roelien H Enting; Mart A A M Heesters; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Ronald W J van Rheenen; Annemiek M E Walenkamp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-12-12 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: K Takano; M Kinoshita; H Arita; Y Okita; Y Chiba; N Kagawa; Y Fujimoto; H Kishima; Y Kanemura; M Nonaka; S Nakajima; E Shimosegawa; J Hatazawa; N Hashimoto; T Yoshimine Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.825
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: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; T Hirai; T Okuda; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Bergström; H Lundqvist; K Ericson; A Lilja; P Johnström; B Långström; H von Holst; L Eriksson; G Blomqvist Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 1987 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: José Gerardo Suárez-García; Javier Miguel Hernández-López; Eduardo Moreno-Barbosa; Benito de Celis-Alonso Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240