Franziska Vettermann1,2, Bogdana Suchorska2,3, Marcus Unterrainer1,2, Debie Nelwan1, Robert Forbrig4, Viktoria Ruf5, Vera Wenter1, Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth2,3, Jochen Herms5, Peter Bartenstein1,2, Jörg-Christian Tonn2,3, Nathalie L Albert6,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Center for Neuropathology and Prion Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. Nathalie.albert@med.uni-muenchen.de. 7. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Nathalie.albert@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: According to the updated WHO classification of gliomas with its emphasis on molecular parameters, tumours with an IDH-wildtype status have a dismal prognosis. To ensure timely adjustment of treatment, demand for non-invasive prediction methods is high. 18F-FET PET has been shown to be an important diagnostic tool for glioma management. The aim of this study was to assess the value of dynamic 18F-FET PET for the non-invasive prediction of the IDH-mutation status. METHODS: Newly diagnosed WHO grade II-IV glioma patients with MRI and dynamic 18F-FET PET were included. The 18F-FET PET parameters mean and maximal tumour-to-background ratio (TBRmean, TBRmax) and minimal time-to-peak (TTPmin) were evaluated. The diagnostic power for the prediction of the IDH genotype (positive/negative predictive value) was tested in the overall study group and in the subgroup of non-contrast enhancing gliomas. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-one patients were evaluated. Molecular analyses revealed 178 IDH-mutant and 163 IDH-wildtype tumours. Overall, 270/341 gliomas were classified as 18F-FET-positive (TBRmax > 1.6), 90.2% of the IDH-wildtype and 69.1% of IDH-mutant gliomas. Median TBRmax was significantly higher in IDH-wildtype compared with IDH-mutant gliomas (2.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.001); however, ROC-analyses revealed no reliable cutoff due to a high overlap (range 1.0-7.1 vs. 1.1-7.9). Dynamic analysis revealed a significantly shorter TTPmin in IDH-wildtype gliomas; using TTPmin ≤ 12.5 min as indicator for IDH-wildtype gliomas, a positive predictive value of 87% was reached (negative predictive value 72%, AUC = 0.796, p ≤ 0.001). A total of 161/341 gliomas did not show contrast enhancement on MRI; even within this subgroup, TTPmin ≤ 12.5 min remained a good predictor of IDH-wildtype glioma (positive predictive value 83%, negative predictive value 90%; AUC = 0.868, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A short TTPmin in dynamic 18F-FET PET serves as good predictor of highly aggressive IDH-wildtype status in gliomas. In particular, a high diagnostic power was observed in the subgroup of non-contrast enhancing gliomas, which helps to identify patients with worse prognosis.
PURPOSE: According to the updated WHO classification of gliomas with its emphasis on molecular parameters, tumours with an IDH-wildtype status have a dismal prognosis. To ensure timely adjustment of treatment, demand for non-invasive prediction methods is high. 18F-FET PET has been shown to be an important diagnostic tool for glioma management. The aim of this study was to assess the value of dynamic 18F-FET PET for the non-invasive prediction of the IDH-mutation status. METHODS: Newly diagnosed WHO grade II-IV gliomapatients with MRI and dynamic 18F-FET PET were included. The 18F-FET PET parameters mean and maximal tumour-to-background ratio (TBRmean, TBRmax) and minimal time-to-peak (TTPmin) were evaluated. The diagnostic power for the prediction of the IDH genotype (positive/negative predictive value) was tested in the overall study group and in the subgroup of non-contrast enhancing gliomas. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-one patients were evaluated. Molecular analyses revealed 178 IDH-mutant and 163 IDH-wildtype tumours. Overall, 270/341 gliomas were classified as 18F-FET-positive (TBRmax > 1.6), 90.2% of the IDH-wildtype and 69.1% of IDH-mutant gliomas. Median TBRmax was significantly higher in IDH-wildtype compared with IDH-mutant gliomas (2.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.001); however, ROC-analyses revealed no reliable cutoff due to a high overlap (range 1.0-7.1 vs. 1.1-7.9). Dynamic analysis revealed a significantly shorter TTPmin in IDH-wildtype gliomas; using TTPmin ≤ 12.5 min as indicator for IDH-wildtype gliomas, a positive predictive value of 87% was reached (negative predictive value 72%, AUC = 0.796, p ≤ 0.001). A total of 161/341 gliomas did not show contrast enhancement on MRI; even within this subgroup, TTPmin ≤ 12.5 min remained a good predictor of IDH-wildtype glioma (positive predictive value 83%, negative predictive value 90%; AUC = 0.868, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A short TTPmin in dynamic 18F-FET PET serves as good predictor of highly aggressive IDH-wildtype status in gliomas. In particular, a high diagnostic power was observed in the subgroup of non-contrast enhancing gliomas, which helps to identify patients with worse prognosis.
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Vera Graute; Lena Armbruster; Bogdana Suchorska; Juergen Lutz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Nathalie L Jansen; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Andrei Todica; Sabina Eigenbrod; Maximilian Niyazi; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Peter Bartenstein; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Hugues Sicotte; Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Matt L Kosel; Ivan V Smirnov; Gobinda Sarkar; Alissa A Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Corinne E Praska; Anisha R Chada; Chandralekha Halder; Helen M Hansen; Lucie S McCoy; Paige M Bracci; Roxanne Marshall; Shichun Zheng; Gerald F Reis; Alexander R Pico; Brian P O'Neill; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Jason T Huse; Arie Perry; Tarik Tihan; Mitchell S Berger; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Joseph Wiemels; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Lenny Dang; David W White; Stefan Gross; Bryson D Bennett; Mark A Bittinger; Edward M Driggers; Valeria R Fantin; Hyun Gyung Jang; Shengfang Jin; Marie C Keenan; Kevin M Marks; Robert M Prins; Patrick S Ward; Katharine E Yen; Linda M Liau; Joshua D Rabinowitz; Lewis C Cantley; Craig B Thompson; Matthew G Vander Heiden; Shinsan M Su Journal: Nature Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Martin Hasselblatt; Mohammed Jaber; David Reuss; Oliver Grauer; Annkatrin Bibo; Stephanie Terwey; Uta Schick; Heinrich Ebel; Thomas Niederstadt; Walter Stummer; Andreas von Deimling; Werner Paulus Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.148
Authors: Philipp Lohmann; Christoph Lerche; Elena K Bauer; Jan Steger; Gabriele Stoffels; Tobias Blau; Veronika Dunkl; Martin Kocher; Shivakumar Viswanathan; Christian P Filss; Carina Stegmayr; Maximillian I Ruge; Bernd Neumaier; Nadim J Shah; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen; Norbert Galldiks Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 4.379
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: Marcus Unterrainer; Franziska Vettermann; Matthias Brendel; Adrien Holzgreve; Michael Lifschitz; Matthias Zähringer; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Ben M Illigens; Peter Bartenstein; Nathalie L Albert Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Tineke van de Weijer; Martijn P G Broen; Rik P M Moonen; Ann Hoeben; Monique Anten; Koos Hovinga; Inge Compter; Jochem A J van der Pol; Cristina Mitea; Toine M Lodewick; Arnaud Jacquerie; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Alida A Postma Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Akifumi Hagiwara; Hiroyuki Uetani; Jingwen Yao; Talia C Oughourlian; Shadfar Bahri; Chencai Wang; Catalina Raymond; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Whitney B Pope; Noriko Salamon; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 4.130
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: Zhicong Li; Lena Kaiser; Adrien Holzgreve; Viktoria C Ruf; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Stefanie Quach; Jochen Herms; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Marcus Unterrainer; Nathalie L Albert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 9.236