Yingbing Wang1, Otto Rapalino2, Pedram Heidari2, Jay Loeffler3, Helen A Shih3, Kevin Oh3, Umar Mahmood2. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: ywang34@partners.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Response criteria of glioblastoma after chemoradiation do not account for metabolic changes that occur after treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with C11 methionine (MET) (MET-PET) for detecting changes that occur after chemoradiation therapy and the value of molecular biomarkers for predicting the magnitude of metabolic response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma undergoing standard chemoradiation treatment were enrolled in this prospective imaging study, with MET-PET scan performed within 3 days after surgical resection and again at 4 weeks after completion of chemoradiation. Near contemporaneous contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 2 weeks of each MET-PET scan. MET-PET imaging was analyzed for maximum standardized uptake value (SUV), SUVmean, and SUVvolume on a multimodality workstation. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients underwent baseline postoperative MET-PET imaging, 14 of whom underwent postchemoradiation MET-PET imaging. Among those who showed residual MET-avid disease on immediate postoperative MET-PET scans and underwent postchemoradiation MET-PET imaging (n = 10), mean ΔSUVmax was -40% (range -100% to 0%), mean ΔSUVmean was -35% (range -100% to 0%), and mean ΔSUV volume was -64% (range -100% to 0%). The Δtumor/brain reference was -40% (range -100% to 0%) using SUVmax and -35% (range -100% to 0%) using SUVmean. In contrast, none of the T2-weighted images on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging showed a >25% reduction in abnormal T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery signal on visual assessment. ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVmean, and ΔSUVvolume correlated with O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status (P = .01), but not with epidermal growth factor receptor or c-MET amplification status. All patients were IDH-1 wildtype. CONCLUSIONS: MET-PET scanning shows a significant decrease in metabolic signal at 1 month after chemoradiation compared with the immediate postoperative period, even when T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery changed little. MGMT promoter methylation status further predicts differential metabolic responses. MET-PET may be a useful tool for delineation of radiation targets and assessment of response.
PURPOSE: Response criteria of glioblastoma after chemoradiation do not account for metabolic changes that occur after treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with C11 methionine (MET) (MET-PET) for detecting changes that occur after chemoradiation therapy and the value of molecular biomarkers for predicting the magnitude of metabolic response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma undergoing standard chemoradiation treatment were enrolled in this prospective imaging study, with MET-PET scan performed within 3 days after surgical resection and again at 4 weeks after completion of chemoradiation. Near contemporaneous contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 2 weeks of each MET-PET scan. MET-PET imaging was analyzed for maximum standardized uptake value (SUV), SUVmean, and SUVvolume on a multimodality workstation. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients underwent baseline postoperative MET-PET imaging, 14 of whom underwent postchemoradiation MET-PET imaging. Among those who showed residual MET-avid disease on immediate postoperative MET-PET scans and underwent postchemoradiation MET-PET imaging (n = 10), mean ΔSUVmax was -40% (range -100% to 0%), mean ΔSUVmean was -35% (range -100% to 0%), and mean ΔSUV volume was -64% (range -100% to 0%). The Δtumor/brain reference was -40% (range -100% to 0%) using SUVmax and -35% (range -100% to 0%) using SUVmean. In contrast, none of the T2-weighted images on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging showed a >25% reduction in abnormal T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery signal on visual assessment. ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVmean, and ΔSUVvolume correlated with O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status (P = .01), but not with epidermal growth factor receptor or c-MET amplification status. All patients were IDH-1 wildtype. CONCLUSIONS:MET-PET scanning shows a significant decrease in metabolic signal at 1 month after chemoradiation compared with the immediate postoperative period, even when T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery changed little. MGMT promoter methylation status further predicts differential metabolic responses. MET-PET may be a useful tool for delineation of radiation targets and assessment of response.
Authors: Anca-Ligia Grosu; Wolfgang A Weber; Eva Riedel; Branislav Jeremic; Carsten Nieder; Martina Franz; Hartmut Gumprecht; Ruprecht Jaeger; Markus Schwaiger; Michael Molls Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Roger Stupp; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Michael Weller; Barbara Fisher; Martin J B Taphoorn; Karl Belanger; Alba A Brandes; Christine Marosi; Ulrich Bogdahn; Jürgen Curschmann; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Thierry Gorlia; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; René O Mirimanoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Miwa; J Shinoda; H Yano; A Okumura; T Iwama; T Nakashima; N Sakai Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Irwin H Lee; Morand Piert; Diana Gomez-Hassan; Larry Junck; Lisa Rogers; James Hayman; Randall K Ten Haken; Theodore S Lawrence; Yue Cao; Christina Tsien Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hai Yan; D Williams Parsons; Genglin Jin; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Weishi Yuan; Ivan Kos; Ines Batinic-Haberle; Siân Jones; Gregory J Riggins; Henry Friedman; Allan Friedman; David Reardon; James Herndon; Kenneth W Kinzler; Victor E Velculescu; Bert Vogelstein; Darell D Bigner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Maximilian Niyazi; Anca L Grosu; Martin Kocher; Karl-Josef Langen; Ian Law; Giuseppe Minniti; Michelle M Kim; Christina Tsien; Frederic Dhermain; Riccardo Soffietti; Minesh P Mehta; Michael Weller; Jörg-Christian Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Sean Miller; Pin Li; Matthew Schipper; Larry Junck; Morand Piert; Theodore S Lawrence; Christina Tsien; Yue Cao; Michelle M Kim Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-09-07
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621