| Literature DB >> 30026674 |
Ryuichi Nishii1,2,3, Tatsuya Higashi1,3, Shinya Kagawa3, Maya Arimoto4, Yoshihiko Kishibe3, Masaaki Takahashi3, Shigeki Yamada5, Masaaki Saiki6, Yoshiki Arakawa7, Hiroshi Yamauchi3, Chio Okuyama3, Masato Hojo8, Toshihiro Munemitsu8, Masahiro Sawada8, Masato Kobayashi9, Keiichi Kawai10, Shigeki Nagamachi2,11, Toshinori Hirai2, Susumu Miyamoto7.
Abstract
Introductions: [N-methyl-C-11]α-Methylaminoisobutyric acid (MeAIB) is an artificial amino acid radiotracer used for PET study, which is metabolically stable in vivo. In addition, MeAIB is transported by system A neutral amino acid transport, which is observed ubiquitously in all types of mammalian cells. It has already been shown that MeAIB-PET is useful for malignant lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and lung tumors. However, there have been no reports evaluating the usefulness of MeAIB-PET in the diagnosis of brain tumors. The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of system A amino acid transport PET imaging, MeAIB-PET, in clinical brain tumor diagnosis compared to [S-methyl-C-11]-L-methionine (MET)-PET.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30026674 PMCID: PMC6031168 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1292746
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Patient characteristics.
| Total ( | |
| Age (years) | |
| Mean ± SD | 44.2 ± 18.5 |
| Median | 44 |
| Range | 5–71 |
| Male : female | 16 : 15 |
|
| |
| Group A (benign) ( | |
| Age (years) | |
| Mean ± SD | 32.2 ± 10.0 |
| Median | 33.5 |
| Range | 5–46 |
| Male : female | 7 : 5 |
| Diagnosis | |
| Astrocytoma grade II or less/low-grade glioma | 11 |
| Brain stem glioma | 1 |
|
| |
| Group B (malignant) ( | |
| Age (years) | |
| Mean ± SD | 56.7 ± 16.8 |
| Median | 60 |
| Range | 14–71 |
| Male : female | 9 : 10 |
| Diagnosis | |
| Glioblastoma multiforme | 7 |
| Glioblastoma multiforme, recurrence | 10 |
| Anaplastic astrocytoma, grade 3 | 2 |
SUVmax and T/N ratios of MeAIB- and MET-PET study in patients with brain tumors.
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis | MeAIB | MET | |||
| SUVmax |
| SUVmax |
| ||
| 1 | Low-grade glioma | 0.58 | 3.22 | 1.98 | 1.78 |
| 2 | Astrocytoma grade II | 2.83 | 8.09 | 2.83 | 1.35 |
| 3 | Low-grade glioma | 0.24 | 1.64 | 1.80 | 1.04 |
| 4 | Glioma grade II | 0.15 | 1.25 | 3.03 | 2.37 |
| 5 | Low-grade glioma | 0.62 | 1.11 | 3.13 | 1.82 |
| 6 | Low-grade glioma | 0.85 | 2.07 | 3.89 | 2.54 |
| 7 | Brain stem glioma | 3.40 | 4.86 | 3.03 | 1.89 |
| 8 | Glioma grade II, rec. | 3.49 | 6.13 | 1.96 | 2.68 |
| 9 | Low-grade glioma | 0.32 | 4.00 | 4.82 | 4.38 |
| 10 | Low-grade glioma | 0.4 | 6.67 | 2.19 | 3.22 |
| 11 | Low-grade glioma | 1.34 | 4.96 | 4.08 | 6.07 |
| 12 | Low-grade glioma | 0.12 | 1.20 | 3.41 | 2.54 |
| Ave. | 1.20 | 3.77 | 3.01 | 2.64 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 13 | GBM | 4.81 | 32.07 | 5.82 | 4.44 |
| 14 | GBM, rec. | 2.95 | 14.89 | 3.49 | 3.45 |
| 15 | GBM, rec. | 2.94 | 26.72 | 3.63 | 3.67 |
| 16 | GBM, rec. | 2.33 | 8.96 | 5.39 | 2.51 |
| 17 | GBM, rec. | 2.84 | 12.91 | 5.54 | 2.55 |
| 18 | GBM, rec. | 2.83 | 15.00 | 4.27 | 3.30 |
| 19 | GBM | 1.60 | 4.00 | 3.10 | 1.24 |
| 20 | GBM | 2.89 | 22.23 | 6.47 | 3.87 |
| 21 | GBM, rec. | 4.51 | 25.10 | 6.14 | 3.23 |
| 22 | GBM, rec. | 2.89 | 17.00 | 3.40 | 2.91 |
| 23 | GBM | 2.81 | 17.56 | 6.07 | 6.07 |
| 24 | GBM | 5.85 | 15.81 | 4.57 | 3.41 |
| 25 | GBM, rec. | 1.22 | 17.43 | 1.46 | 1.76 |
| 26 | GBM, rec. | 4.58 | 21.73 | 5.90 | 2.71 |
| 27 | GBM, rec. | 2.83 | 15.00 | 4.27 | 3.30 |
| 28 | GBM | 2.89 | 22.23 | 7.82 | 4.68 |
| 29 | Anaplastic astrocytoma | 1.95 | 10.26 | 5.94 | 4.01 |
| 30 | Anaplastic astrocytoma | 1.73 | 7.86 | 2.18 | 1.79 |
| 31 | GBM | 1.43 | 13.00 | 4.27 | 2.12 |
| Ave. | 2.94 | 16.83 | 4.72 | 3.21 | |
Figure 1Comparison between benign and malignant groups by SUVmax of the lesions in MeAIB-PET (a) and MET-PET (b).
Figure 2Comparison between benign and malignant groups by T/N ratio in MeAIB-PET (a) and MET-PET (b).
Figure 3A case of a forty-year-old male who had a diffusely irregular-shaped mass in the left frontal lobe, which was diagnosed as astrocytoma, grade II after surgery (benign group) (case #4). High uptake of MET was in the tumor, while no significant uptake of MeAIB was noted.
Figure 4A case of a thirty-three-year-old male having newly diagnosed low-grade glioma in the right frontal lobe by stereotactic biopsy (benign group) (case #6). High uptake of MET was in the tumor, while no significant uptake of MeAIB was noted.
Figure 5A case of a seventy-one-year-male who had newly diagnosed GBM in the left corpus callosum by stereotactic biopsy (malignant group) (case #13). A clear margined tumor was depicted as a high uptake of MeAIB lesion. MET-PET also demonstrated the lesion with the physiological uptake. Higher T/N ratio was noted in MeAIB-PET image.
Figure 8A case of a sixty-eight-year-old female who had received chemoradiotherapy before for GBM in the left temporal lobe (malignant group) (case #18). A clear margined tumor was depicted as a high uptake of MeAIB lesion. MET-PET also demonstrated the lesion; however, the margin of the lesion was unclear due to the physiological uptake of MET in the brain. Recurrent GBM was confirmed after stereotactic biopsy.
Figure 6Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analyses for the diagnostic accuracy of MeAIB-PET and MET-PET using semiquantitative analysis. (a) For ROC analysis using SUVmax, the area under the curve (AUC) value for MeAIB PET was 0.83 with standard error 0.090, 95% CI 0.65–1.00, and p < 0.005. The AUC for MET-PET was 0.82 with standard error 0.076, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, and p < 0.005. There was no significance of diagnosis accuracy between them. (b) For ROC analysis using T/N ratio, the AUC value for MeAIB PET was 0.97 with standard error 0.027, 95% CI 0.92–1.02, and p < 0.0001. The AUC for MET-PET was 0.69 with standard error 0.10, 95% CI 0.48–0.89, and p < 0.1. These analyses indicated better diagnosis accuracy of MeAIB-PET for brain tumors than MET-PET (p < 0.01).
Figure 7Relationship between SUVmax of MeAIB and that of MET of each lesion in both PET study using logistic regression. In the benign group, SUVmax of MeAIB showed nonsignificant linear relationship with that of MET (a). On the contrary, in the malignant group, SUVmax of MeAIB showed a weak positive correlation with that of MET (p=0.06, R2=0.20) (b).