Merwan Ginet1, Timothée Zaragori1,2, Pierre-Yves Marie1,3, Véronique Roch1, Guillaume Gauchotte4,5, Fabien Rech6,7, Marie Blonski6,7, Zohra Lamiral3, Luc Taillandier7,8, Laëtitia Imbert1,2, Antoine Verger9,10. 1. CHRU-Nancy, Department of Nuclear Medicine & Nancyclotep Imaging platform, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. 2. IADI, INSERM, UMR 1254, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. 3. Université de Lorraine, INSERM U1116, F-54000, Nancy, France. 4. CHRU-Nancy, Department of Pathology, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. 5. INSERM U1256, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, CHU-Nancy, F-54000, Nancy, France. 7. Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy CRAN, CNRS UMR 7039, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. 8. CHRU-Nancy, Department of Neuro-oncology, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. 9. CHRU-Nancy, Department of Nuclear Medicine & Nancyclotep Imaging platform, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. a.verger@chru-nancy.fr. 10. IADI, INSERM, UMR 1254, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France. a.verger@chru-nancy.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 18F-FDopa PET imaging of gliomas is routinely interpreted with standardized uptake value (SUV)-derived indices. This study aimed to determine the added value of dynamic 18F-FDopa PET parameters for predicting the molecular features of newly diagnosed gliomas. METHODS: We retrospectively included 58 patients having undergone an 18F-FDopa PET for establishing the initial diagnosis of gliomas, whose molecular features were additionally characterized according to the WHO 2016 classification. Dynamic parameters, involving time-to-peak (TTP) values and curve slopes, were tested for the prediction of glioma types in addition to current static parameters, i.e., tumor-to-normal brain or tumor-to-striatum SUV ratios and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). RESULTS: There were 21 IDH mutant without 1p/19q co-deletion (IDH+/1p19q-) gliomas, 16 IDH mutants with 1p/19q co-deletion (IDH+/1p19q+) gliomas, and 21 IDH wildtype (IDH-) gliomas. Dynamic parameters enabled differentiating the gliomas according to these molecular features, whereas static parameters did not. In particular, a longer TTP was the single best independent predictor for identifying (1) IDH mutation status (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.789, global accuracy of 74% for the criterion of a TTP ≥ 5.4 min) and (2) 1p/19q co-deletion status (AUC of 0.679, global accuracy of 69% for the criterion of a TTP ≥ 6.9 min). Moreover, the TTP from IDH- gliomas was significantly shorter than those from both IDH+/1p19q- and IDH+/1p19q+ (p ≤ 0.007). CONCLUSION: Prediction of the molecular features of newly diagnosed gliomas with 18F-FDopa PET and especially of the presence or not of an IDH mutation, may be obtained with dynamic but not with current static uptake parameters.
PURPOSE:18F-FDopa PET imaging of gliomas is routinely interpreted with standardized uptake value (SUV)-derived indices. This study aimed to determine the added value of dynamic 18F-FDopa PET parameters for predicting the molecular features of newly diagnosed gliomas. METHODS: We retrospectively included 58 patients having undergone an 18F-FDopa PET for establishing the initial diagnosis of gliomas, whose molecular features were additionally characterized according to the WHO 2016 classification. Dynamic parameters, involving time-to-peak (TTP) values and curve slopes, were tested for the prediction of glioma types in addition to current static parameters, i.e., tumor-to-normal brain or tumor-to-striatum SUV ratios and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). RESULTS: There were 21 IDH mutant without 1p/19q co-deletion (IDH+/1p19q-) gliomas, 16 IDH mutants with 1p/19q co-deletion (IDH+/1p19q+) gliomas, and 21 IDH wildtype (IDH-) gliomas. Dynamic parameters enabled differentiating the gliomas according to these molecular features, whereas static parameters did not. In particular, a longer TTP was the single best independent predictor for identifying (1) IDH mutation status (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.789, global accuracy of 74% for the criterion of a TTP ≥ 5.4 min) and (2) 1p/19q co-deletion status (AUC of 0.679, global accuracy of 69% for the criterion of a TTP ≥ 6.9 min). Moreover, the TTP from IDH- gliomas was significantly shorter than those from both IDH+/1p19q- and IDH+/1p19q+ (p ≤ 0.007). CONCLUSION: Prediction of the molecular features of newly diagnosed gliomas with 18F-FDopa PET and especially of the presence or not of an IDH mutation, may be obtained with dynamic but not with current static uptake parameters.
Authors: Marco Perizzolo; Bob Winkfein; Susan Hui; Wally Krulicki; Jennifer A Chan; Douglas J Demetrick Journal: Brain Pathol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 6.508
Authors: A Verger; Ph Metellus; Q Sala; C Colin; E Bialecki; D Taieb; O Chinot; D Figarella-Branger; E Guedj Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Barbara J Fueger; Johannes Czernin; Timothy Cloughesy; Daniel H Silverman; Cheri L Geist; Martin A Walter; Christiaan Schiepers; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Michael E Phelps; Wei Chen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marcus Unterrainer; Florian Schweisthal; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Wolfgang P Fendler; Ulrich Schüller; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Nathalie L Albert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cristina Barca; Claudia Foray; Bastian Zinnhardt; Alexandra Winkeler; Ulrich Herrlinger; Oliver M Grauer; Andreas H Jacobs Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 6.575
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: Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Hiroyuki Uetani; Akifumi Hagiwara; Jingwen Yao; Talia C Oughourlian; Issei Ueda; Catalina Raymond; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Shadfar Bahri; Whitney B Pope; Noriko Salamon; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Francesca Pasi; Marco G Persico; Manuela Marenco; Martina Vigorito; Angelica Facoetti; Marina Hodolic; Rosanna Nano; Giorgio Cavenaghi; Lorenzo Lodola; Carlo Aprile Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: David Sipos; Zoltan László; Zoltan Tóth; Peter Kovács; Jozsef Tollár; Akos Gulybán; Ferenc Lakosi; Imre Repa; Arpad Kovács Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Antoine Girard; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Alice Metais; Nibras Chaboub; Anne Devillers; Hervé Saint-Jalmes; Florence Le Jeune; Xavier Palard-Novello Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-07-09