| Literature DB >> 31033921 |
Jose M Anton-Rodriguez1,2, Daniel Lewis1,3, Ibrahim Djoukhadar4, David Russell5, Peter Julyan1,2, David Coope1,3, Andrew T King3, Simon K L Lloyd3, D Gareth Evans6, Alan Jackson1,7, Julian C Matthews1,7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether [F]fluorothymidine (FLT) and/or [F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) can differentiate growth in neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) related vestibular schwannomas (VS) and to evaluate the importance of PET scanner spatial resolution on measured tumor uptake.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31033921 PMCID: PMC6594723 DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Otol Neurotol ISSN: 1531-7129 Impact factor: 2.311
Patient demographics, tumor features, and clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up
| Patient | Location | Patient Age | Growth Classification | Volume on Preceding Clinical Scan (cm3) | Volume at Time of PET Scan (cm3) | Volume 1 Yr Following PET Scan (cm3) | Annual Adjusted Volume Change (cm3/yr) | Status of VS 1 Yr Following the PET Scan |
| A | Right | 33 Female | RG | 0.29 | 0.36 | Resected | 0.09 | Resected—cochlear preserving surgery |
| Left | RG | 1.36 | 1.60 | 2.09 | 0.43 | Continued growth. Patient qualified for Bevacizumab treatment. | ||
| B | Right | 48 Male | Indolent | 0.95 | 0.84 | 0.87 | −0.04 | Monitoring |
| Left | Indolent | 2.22 | 2.23 | 2.30 | 0.04 | Monitoring | ||
| C | Right | 32 Male | Indolent | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.82 | −0.02 | Monitoring. |
| D | Right | 21 Female | RG | 1.34 | 1.42 | 3.30 | 0.99 | Continued growth. Patient qualified for Bevacizumab treatment. |
| Left | Indolent | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.03 | Monitoring | ||
| E | Right | 59 Male | RG | 0.24 | 0.67 | Resected | 0.46 | Resected- cochlear preserving surgery |
| Left | Indolent | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.02 | Monitoring | ||
| F | Right | 55 Female | Indolent | Very small enhancing intracanalicular nodule | N/A | Monitoring | ||
| Left | Indolent | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.20 | −0.03 | Monitoring | ||
Intracanalicular lesion at the time of PET scan.
Patient C had a large left VS removed 1 year before study.
Age at the time the PET scans took place.
RG indicates rapid growing.
FIG. 1MRI and FDG/FLT PET images. From left to right: coregistered axial contrast enhanced MRI slices through cerebellopontine angle; axial PET FDG images taken at 30 minutes using TrueV PET-CT scanner without RM; axial PET FLT images taken at 30 minutes using TrueV PET-CT scanner without RM. Top row—33-year-old female (patient A) with bilateral growing VS. High uptake of both FDG and FLT is observed in the larger left-sided VS, with a small area of focal FDG uptake within the right-sided tumor. Bottom row—21-year-old female (patient D) with right-sided growing VS and left-sided slow growing (indolent) tumor. The right lesion shows uptake of both FLT and FDG while the left lesion showed minimal uptake of either tracer. All PET images show the summed activity at approximately 75 to 105 minutes postinjection.
Intertumor comparison of derived mean, maximum, and peak SUV values (g/ml) between slow growing (indolent) and fast growing tumors following the injection of FDG and FLT
| FDG—Intragroup Mean (+/S.D) | |||||||||||||
| TrueV No-RM | TrueV RM | HRRT No-RM | HRRT RM | ||||||||||
| N | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | |
| Slow growing (indolent) | 7 | 2.11 (0.88) | 4.74 (1.90) | 2.57 (1.01) | 2.01 (0.94) | 4.42 (2.09) | 2.56 (1.25) | 1.81 (0.87) | 10.58 (5.04) | 2.28 (1.07) | 1.71 (1.00) | 5.42 (3.25) | 2.19 (1.27) |
| Fast growing | 4 | 3.49 (1.26) | 7.21 (2.16) | 4.09 (1.50) | 3.61 (1.43) | 8.40 (3.57) | 4.41 (1.82) | 2.96 (0.93) | 15.00 (3.97) | 3.82 (1.21) | 2.95 (0.90) | 9.00 (2.25) | 3.86 (1.18) |
Displayed data—intragroup mean SUV (SD). All SUV values derived at approximately 75 to 105 minutes postinjection.
FIG. 2Intertumor comparison boxplots of derived mean and peak SUV values (g/ml) between slow growing (indolent) and fast growing VS following the injection of FDG and FLT. Using the TrueV PET-CT scanner with RM for FDG (A) and FLT (C); using the HRRT scanner with RM for FDG (B) and FLT (D). ∗p < 0.05—one tailed Student's t test, comparison between slow growing/indolent and fast growing VS for each SUV parameter.
FIG. 3Intertumor scatterplot comparison of FDG versus FLT uptake. Scatter plots of the mean tumor SUV values of FDG against FLT for both the TrueV (left column) and HRRT scanner (right column) without RM and with RM. For each graph, a line of best fit for proportionality is shown, along with the equation and R2 values. Lesions classified as rapid growing (growing) are shown as solid circles, whereas slow growing/indolent lesions are shown as an open square.
Receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values when using volume of lesion (top), and mean, maximum, and peak SUV values (g/ml) of FDG and FLT within contrast enhanced VS lesions to classify lesion growth at approximately 75 to 105 minutes following the injection
| 0.601 | ||||||||||||
| TrueV No-RM | TrueV RM | HRRT No-RM | HRRT RM | |||||||||
| Volume Tracer | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak | SUV Mean | SUV Max | SUV Peak |
| FDG | 0.821 | 0.786 | 0.786 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.750 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.893 | 0.821 |
| FLT | 0.714 | 0.714 | 0.786 | 0.821 | 0.750 | 0.786 | 0.786 | 0.643 | 0.786 | 0.857 | 0.750 | 0.821 |
| Combined FDG and FLT | 0.786 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.679 | 0.821 | 0.857 | 0.857 | 0.821 |
Data shown for both the TrueV PET-CT and HRRT PET scanners with and without RM.