N A da Silva1, P Lohmann1, J Fairney2,3, A W Magill1,4, A-M Oros Peusquens1, C-H Choi1, R Stirnberg1,5, G Stoffels1, N Galldiks1,6,7, X Golay2,3, K-J Langen1,8,9, N Jon Shah10,11,12. 1. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425, Jülich, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, London, UK. 3. Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, London, UK. 4. Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 5. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), Universities of Cologne and Bonn, Cologne, Germany. 8. Juelich-Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Section JARA-Brain, Jülich, Germany. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 10. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425, Jülich, Germany. n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de. 11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany. n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de. 12. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: PET using radiolabelled amino acids has become a promising tool in the diagnostics of gliomas and brain metastasis. Current research is focused on the evaluation of amide proton transfer (APT) chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MR imaging for brain tumour imaging. In this hybrid MR-PET study, brain tumours were compared using 3D data derived from APT-CEST MRI and amino acid PET using O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET). METHODS: Eight patients with gliomas were investigated simultaneously with 18F-FET PET and APT-CEST MRI using a 3-T MR-BrainPET scanner. CEST imaging was based on a steady-state approach using a B1 average power of 1μT. B0 field inhomogeneities were corrected a Prametric images of magnetisation transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym) and differences to the extrapolated semi-solid magnetisation transfer reference method, APT# and nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE#), were calculated. Statistical analysis of the tumour-to-brain ratio of the CEST data was performed against PET data using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: A tumour-to-brain ratio derived from APT# and 18F-FET presented no significant differences, and no correlation was found between APT# and 18F-FET PET data. The distance between local hot spot APT# and 18F-FET were different (average 20 ± 13 mm, range 4-45 mm). CONCLUSION: For the first time, CEST images were compared with 18F-FET in a simultaneous MR-PET measurement. Imaging findings derived from18F-FET PET and APT CEST MRI seem to provide different biological information. The validation of these imaging findings by histological confirmation is necessary, ideally using stereotactic biopsy.
PURPOSE: PET using radiolabelled amino acids has become a promising tool in the diagnostics of gliomas and brain metastasis. Current research is focused on the evaluation of amide proton transfer (APT) chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MR imaging for brain tumour imaging. In this hybrid MR-PET study, brain tumours were compared using 3D data derived from APT-CEST MRI and amino acid PET using O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET). METHODS: Eight patients with gliomas were investigated simultaneously with 18F-FET PET and APT-CEST MRI using a 3-T MR-BrainPET scanner. CEST imaging was based on a steady-state approach using a B1 average power of 1μT. B0 field inhomogeneities were corrected a Prametric images of magnetisation transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym) and differences to the extrapolated semi-solid magnetisation transfer reference method, APT# and nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE#), were calculated. Statistical analysis of the tumour-to-brain ratio of the CEST data was performed against PET data using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: A tumour-to-brain ratio derived from APT# and 18F-FET presented no significant differences, and no correlation was found between APT# and 18F-FET PET data. The distance between local hot spot APT# and 18F-FET were different (average 20 ± 13 mm, range 4-45 mm). CONCLUSION: For the first time, CEST images were compared with 18F-FET in a simultaneous MR-PET measurement. Imaging findings derived from18F-FET PET and APT CEST MRI seem to provide different biological information. The validation of these imaging findings by histological confirmation is necessary, ideally using stereotactic biopsy.
Authors: Craig K Jones; Daniel Polders; Jun Hua; He Zhu; Hans J Hoogduin; Jinyuan Zhou; Peter Luijten; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jonathan McConathy; Weiping Yu; Nachwa Jarkas; Wonewoo Seo; David M Schuster; Mark M Goodman Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 12.944
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: Carina Stegmayr; Ulrike Bandelow; Dennis Oliveira; Philipp Lohmann; Antje Willuweit; Christian Filss; Norbert Galldiks; Joachim H R Lübke; N Jon Shah; Johannes Ermert; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniel Paech; Moritz Zaiss; Jan-Eric Meissner; Johannes Windschuh; Benedikt Wiestler; Peter Bachert; Jan Oliver Neumann; Philipp Kickingereder; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Armin Michael Nagel; Sabine Heiland; Mark Edward Ladd; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Laura Mancini; Stefano Casagranda; Guillaume Gautier; Philippe Peter; Bruno Lopez; Lewis Thorne; Andrew McEvoy; Anna Miserocchi; George Samandouras; Neil Kitchen; Sebastian Brandner; Enrico De Vita; Francisco Torrealdea; Marilena Rega; Benjamin Schmitt; Patrick Liebig; Eser Sanverdi; Xavier Golay; Sotirios Bisdas Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wynton B Overcast; Korbin M Davis; Chang Y Ho; Gary D Hutchins; Mark A Green; Brian D Graner; Michael C Veronesi Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Martina Sebök; Christiaan Hendrik Bas van Niftrik; Giovanni Muscas; Athina Pangalu; Katharina Seystahl; Michael Weller; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-03-30
Authors: S Schön; J Cabello; F Liesche-Starnecker; M Molina-Romero; P Eichinger; M Metz; I Karimov; C Preibisch; J Keupp; A Hock; B Meyer; W Weber; C Zimmer; T Pyka; I Yakushev; J Gempt; B Wiestler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 9.236