BACKGROUND: O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) PET has a sensitivity of more than 90% to detect gliomas. In the remaining small fraction of gliomas without increased tracer uptake, some tumors even show photopenic defects whose clinical significance is unclear. METHODS: Glioma patients with a negative FET PET scan prior to neuropathological confirmation were identified retrospectively. Gliomas were rated visually as (i) having indifferent FET uptake or (ii) photopenic, if FET uptake was below background activity. FET uptake in the area of signal hyperintensity on the T2/fluid attenuated inversion recovery-weighted MRI was evaluated by mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and mean tumor-to-brain ratio (TBR). The progression-free survival (PFS) of photopenic gliomas was compared with that of gliomas with indifferent FET uptake. RESULTS: Of 100 FET-negative gliomas, 40 cases with photopenic defects were identified. Fifteen of these 40 cases (38%) had World Health Organization (WHO) grades III and IV gliomas. FET uptake in photopenic gliomas was significantly decreased compared with both the healthy-appearing brain tissue (SUV, 0.89 ± 0.26 vs 1.08 ± 0.23; P < 0.001) and gliomas with indifferent FET uptake (TBR, 0.82 ± 0.09 vs 0.96 ± 0.13; P < 0.001). Irrespective of the applied treatment, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated WHO grade II diffuse astrocytoma patients with indifferent FET uptake (n = 25) had a significantly longer PFS than patients with IDH-mutated diffuse astrocytomas (WHO grade II) with photopenic defects (n = 11) (51 vs 24 mo; P = 0.027). The multivariate survival analysis indicated that photopenic defects predict an unfavorable PFS (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Photopenic gliomas in negative FET PET scans should be managed more actively, as they seem to have a higher risk of harboring a higher-grade glioma and an unfavorable outcome.
BACKGROUND:O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) PET has a sensitivity of more than 90% to detect gliomas. In the remaining small fraction of gliomas without increased tracer uptake, some tumors even show photopenic defects whose clinical significance is unclear. METHODS:Gliomapatients with a negative FET PET scan prior to neuropathological confirmation were identified retrospectively. Gliomas were rated visually as (i) having indifferent FET uptake or (ii) photopenic, if FET uptake was below background activity. FET uptake in the area of signal hyperintensity on the T2/fluid attenuated inversion recovery-weighted MRI was evaluated by mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and mean tumor-to-brain ratio (TBR). The progression-free survival (PFS) of photopenic gliomas was compared with that of gliomas with indifferent FET uptake. RESULTS: Of 100 FET-negative gliomas, 40 cases with photopenic defects were identified. Fifteen of these 40 cases (38%) had World Health Organization (WHO) grades III and IV gliomas. FET uptake in photopenic gliomas was significantly decreased compared with both the healthy-appearing brain tissue (SUV, 0.89 ± 0.26 vs 1.08 ± 0.23; P < 0.001) and gliomas with indifferent FET uptake (TBR, 0.82 ± 0.09 vs 0.96 ± 0.13; P < 0.001). Irrespective of the applied treatment, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated WHO grade II diffuse astrocytomapatients with indifferent FET uptake (n = 25) had a significantly longer PFS than patients with IDH-mutated diffuse astrocytomas (WHO grade II) with photopenic defects (n = 11) (51 vs 24 mo; P = 0.027). The multivariate survival analysis indicated that photopenic defects predict an unfavorable PFS (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION:Photopenic gliomas in negative FET PET scans should be managed more actively, as they seem to have a higher risk of harboring a higher-grade glioma and an unfavorable outcome.
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Michael Weller; Bogdana Suchorska; Norbert Galldiks; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Christian la Fougère; Whitney Pope; Ian Law; Javier Arbizu; Marc C Chamberlain; Michael Vogelbaum; Ben M Ellingson; Joerg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Frank W Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Michael Sabel; Gabriele Stoffels; Guido Reifenberger; Markus J Riemenschneider; Paul Jansen; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Jakob Steiger; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Karl-Josef Langen; Nathalie L Albert; Marc Chamberlain; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Ian Law; Emilie Le Rhun; Susan Chang; Julian Schwarting; Stephanie E Combs; Matthias Preusser; Peter Forsyth; Whitney Pope; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Markus Hutterer; Martha Nowosielski; Daniel Putzer; Nathalie L Jansen; Marcel Seiz; Michael Schocke; Mark McCoy; Georg Göbel; Christian la Fougère; Irene J Virgolini; Eugen Trinka; Andreas H Jacobs; Günther Stockhammer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Florian Stockhammer; Michail Plotkin; Holger Amthauer; Frank K H van Landeghem; Christian Woiciechowsky Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: A S Jakola; A J Skjulsvik; K S Myrmel; K Sjåvik; G Unsgård; S H Torp; K Aaberg; T Berg; H Y Dai; K Johnsen; R Kloster; O Solheim Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Antoine Verger; Timothée Zaragori; Marcus Unterrainer; Bogdana Suchorska; Philipp Lohmann; Jörg C Tonn; Karl-Josef Langen; Nathalie L Albert Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Maria R Ponisio; Jonathan E McConathy; Sonika M Dahiya; Michelle M Miller-Thomas; Keith M Rich; Amber Salter; Qing Wang; Pamela J LaMontagne; Gloria J Guzmán Pérez-Carrillo; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-08-07
Authors: Marcus Unterrainer; Viktoria Ruf; Katharina von Rohr; Bogdana Suchorska; Lena Maria Mittlmeier; Leonie Beyer; Matthias Brendel; Vera Wenter; Wolfgang G Kunz; Peter Bartenstein; Jochen Herms; Maximilian Niyazi; Jörg C Tonn; Nathalie Lisa Albert Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Jingwen Yao; Talia C Oughourlian; Akifumi Hagiwara; Chencai Wang; Catalina Raymond; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Noriko Salamon; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 10.782
Authors: Adrien Holzgreve; Annamaria Biczok; Viktoria C Ruf; Friederike Liesche-Starnecker; Katja Steiger; Maximilian A Kirchner; Marcus Unterrainer; Lena Mittlmeier; Jochen Herms; Jürgen Schlegel; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Nathalie L Albert; Bogdana Suchorska Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 6.244