Paul L de Zwart1, Bart R J van Dijken1, Gea A Holtman2, Gilles N Stormezand3, Rudi A J O Dierckx3, Peter Jan van Laar1,4, Anouk van der Hoorn5. 1. Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; and. 4. Department of Radiology, Zorggroep Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands a.van.der.hoorn@umcg.nl.
Abstract
Posttreatment high-grade gliomas are usually monitored with contrast-enhanced MRI, but its diagnostic accuracy is limited as it cannot adequately distinguish between true tumor progression and treatment-related changes. According to recent Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology recommendations, PET overcomes this limitation. However, it is currently unknown which tracer yields the best results. Therefore, a systematic review and metaanalysis were performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the different PET tracers in differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related changes in high-grade glioma patients. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched systematically. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. Metaanalysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model when at least 5 studies were included. Results: The systematic review included 39 studies (11 tracers). 18F-FDG (12 studies, 171 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% confidence interval, 72%-92%) and 84% (95% confidence interval, 69%-93%), respectively. O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) (7 studies, 172 lesions) demonstrated a sensitivity of 90% (95% confidence interval, 81%-95%) and specificity of 85% (95% confidence interval, 71%-93%). For S-11C-methyl)-l-methionine (11C-MET) (8 studies, 151 lesions), sensitivity was 93% (95% confidence interval, 80%-98%) and specificity was 82% (95% confidence interval, 68%-91%). The numbers of included studies for the other tracers were too low to combine, but sensitivity and specificity ranged between 93%-100% and 0%-100%, respectively, for 18F-FLT; 85%-100% and 72%-100%, respectively, for 3,4-dihydroxy-6-18F-fluoro-l-phenylalanine (18F-FDOPA); and 100% and 70%-88%, respectively, for 11C-choline. Conclusion: 18F-FET and 11C-MET, both amino-acid tracers, showed a comparably higher sensitivity than 18F-FDG in the differentiation between tumor progression and treatment-related changes in high-grade glioma patients. The evidence for other tracers is limited; thus, 18F-FET and 11C-MET are preferred when available. Our results support the incorporation of amino-acid PET tracers for the treatment evaluation of high-grade gliomas.
Posttreatment high-grade gliomas are usually monitored with contrast-enhanced MRI, but its diagnostic accuracy is limited as it cannot adequately distinguish between true tumor progression and treatment-related changes. According to recent Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology recommendations, PET overcomes this limitation. However, it is currently unknown which tracer yields the best results. Therefore, a systematic review and metaanalysis were performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the different PET tracers in differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related changes in high-grade gliomapatients. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched systematically. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. Metaanalysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model when at least 5 studies were included. Results: The systematic review included 39 studies (11 tracers). 18F-FDG (12 studies, 171 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% confidence interval, 72%-92%) and 84% (95% confidence interval, 69%-93%), respectively. O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) (7 studies, 172 lesions) demonstrated a sensitivity of 90% (95% confidence interval, 81%-95%) and specificity of 85% (95% confidence interval, 71%-93%). For S-11C-methyl)-l-methionine (11C-MET) (8 studies, 151 lesions), sensitivity was 93% (95% confidence interval, 80%-98%) and specificity was 82% (95% confidence interval, 68%-91%). The numbers of included studies for the other tracers were too low to combine, but sensitivity and specificity ranged between 93%-100% and 0%-100%, respectively, for 18F-FLT; 85%-100% and 72%-100%, respectively, for 3,4-dihydroxy-6-18F-fluoro-l-phenylalanine (18F-FDOPA); and 100% and 70%-88%, respectively, for 11C-choline. Conclusion: 18F-FET and 11C-MET, both amino-acid tracers, showed a comparably higher sensitivity than 18F-FDG in the differentiation between tumor progression and treatment-related changes in high-grade gliomapatients. The evidence for other tracers is limited; thus, 18F-FET and 11C-MET are preferred when available. Our results support the incorporation of amino-acid PET tracers for the treatment evaluation of high-grade gliomas.
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; Adam E Hansen; Aida Muhic; Lisbeth Marner; Karine Madsen; Søren Møller; Benedikte Hasselbalch; Michael J Lundemann; David Scheie; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Hans S Poulsen; Vibeke A Larsen; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lisbeth Marner; Michael Lundemann; Astrid Sehested; Karsten Nysom; Lise Borgwardt; René Mathiasen; Peder S Wehner; Otto M Henriksen; Carsten Thomsen; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Helle Broholm; Olga Østrup; Julie L Forman; Liselotte Højgaard; Ian Law Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert J Young; Paula Demétrio De Souza França; Giacomo Pirovano; Anna F Piotrowski; Philip J Nicklin; Christopher C Riedl; Jazmin Schwartz; Tejus A Bale; Patrick L Donabedian; Susanne Kossatz; Eva M Burnazi; Sheryl Roberts; Serge K Lyashchenko; Alexandra M Miller; Nelson S Moss; Megan Fiasconaro; Zhigang Zhang; Audrey Mauguen; Thomas Reiner; Mark P Dunphy Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2020-09-15
Authors: Eric Guedj; Andrea Varrone; Ronald Boellaard; Nathalie L Albert; Henryk Barthel; Bart van Berckel; Matthias Brendel; Diego Cecchin; Ozgul Ekmekcioglu; Valentina Garibotto; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ian Law; Iván Peñuelas; Franck Semah; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Elsmarieke van de Giessen; Donatienne Van Weehaeghe; Silvia Morbelli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Evita C Wiegers; Esther A H Warnert; Kathleen M Schmainda; Frank Riemer; Ruben E Nechifor; Vera C Keil; Gilbert Hangel; Patrícia Figueiredo; Maria Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Otto M Henriksen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 5.738