Antoine Leimgruber1,2, Kevin Hickson1,3, Sze Ting Lee1,4,5, Hui K Gan2,5, Lawrence M Cher6, John I Sachinidis1, Graeme J O'Keefe1, Andrew M Scott7,8,9,10. 1. Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. 2. Service of Medical Imaging, Hospital Riviera Chablais, Rennaz, Switzerland. 3. Medical Physics and Radiation Safety, South Australia Medical Imaging, Adelaide, Australia. 4. Tumour Targeting Laboratory, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia. 5. School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Austin Health, PO Box 5555, Heidelberg, Vic, 3084, Australia. 7. Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. andrew.scott@onjcri.org.au. 8. Tumour Targeting Laboratory, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia. andrew.scott@onjcri.org.au. 9. School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. andrew.scott@onjcri.org.au. 10. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Austin Health, PO Box 5555, Heidelberg, Vic, 3084, Australia. andrew.scott@onjcri.org.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tumor hypoxia is a centerpiece of disease progression mechanisms such as neoangiogenesis or aggressive hypoxia-resistant malignant cells selection that impacts on radiotherapy strategies. Early identification of regions at risk for recurrence and prognostic-based classification of patients is a necessity to devise tailored therapeutic strategies. We developed an image-based algorithm to spatially map areas of aerobic and anaerobic glycolysis (Glyoxia). METHODS: 18F-FDG and 18F-FMISO PET studies were used in the algorithm to produce DICOM-co-registered representations and maximum intensity projections combined with quantitative analysis of hypoxic volume (HV), hypoxic glycolytic volume (HGV), and anaerobic glycolytic volume (AGV) with CT/MRI co-registration. This was applied to a prospective clinical trial of 10 glioblastoma patients with post-operative, pre-radiotherapy, and early post-radiotherapy 18F-FDG and 18F-FMISO PET and MRI studies. RESULTS: In the 10 glioblastoma patients (5M:5F; age range 51-69 years), 14/18 18F-FMISO PET studies showed detectable hypoxia. Seven patients survived to complete post-radiotherapy studies. The patient with the longest overall survival showed non-detectable hypoxia in both pre-radiotherapy and post-radiotherapy 18F-FMISO PET. The three patients with increased HV, HGV, and AGV volumes after radiotherapy showed 2.8 months mean progression-free interval vs. 5.9 months for the other 4 patients. These parameters correlated at that time point with progression-free interval. Parameters combining hypoxia and glycolytic information (i.e., HGV and AGV) showed more prominent variation than hypoxia-based information alone (HV). Glyoxia-generated images were consistent with disease relapse topology; in particular, one patient had distant relapse anticipated by HV, HGV, and AGV maps. CONCLUSION: Spatial mapping of aerobic and anaerobic glycolysis allows unique information on tumor metabolism and hypoxia to be evaluated with PET, providing a greater understanding of tumor biology and potential response to therapy.
INTRODUCTION: Tumor hypoxia is a centerpiece of disease progression mechanisms such as neoangiogenesis or aggressive hypoxia-resistant malignant cells selection that impacts on radiotherapy strategies. Early identification of regions at risk for recurrence and prognostic-based classification of patients is a necessity to devise tailored therapeutic strategies. We developed an image-based algorithm to spatially map areas of aerobic and anaerobic glycolysis (Glyoxia). METHODS: 18F-FDG and 18F-FMISO PET studies were used in the algorithm to produce DICOM-co-registered representations and maximum intensity projections combined with quantitative analysis of hypoxic volume (HV), hypoxic glycolytic volume (HGV), and anaerobic glycolytic volume (AGV) with CT/MRI co-registration. This was applied to a prospective clinical trial of 10 glioblastoma patients with post-operative, pre-radiotherapy, and early post-radiotherapy 18F-FDG and 18F-FMISO PET and MRI studies. RESULTS: In the 10 glioblastoma patients (5M:5F; age range 51-69 years), 14/18 18F-FMISO PET studies showed detectable hypoxia. Seven patients survived to complete post-radiotherapy studies. The patient with the longest overall survival showed non-detectable hypoxia in both pre-radiotherapy and post-radiotherapy 18F-FMISO PET. The three patients with increased HV, HGV, and AGV volumes after radiotherapy showed 2.8 months mean progression-free interval vs. 5.9 months for the other 4 patients. These parameters correlated at that time point with progression-free interval. Parameters combining hypoxia and glycolytic information (i.e., HGV and AGV) showed more prominent variation than hypoxia-based information alone (HV). Glyoxia-generated images were consistent with disease relapse topology; in particular, one patient had distant relapse anticipated by HV, HGV, and AGV maps. CONCLUSION: Spatial mapping of aerobic and anaerobic glycolysis allows unique information on tumor metabolism and hypoxia to be evaluated with PET, providing a greater understanding of tumor biology and potential response to therapy.
Authors: Kyle C Cuneo; James J Vredenburgh; John H Sampson; David A Reardon; Annick Desjardins; Katherine B Peters; Henry S Friedman; Christopher G Willett; John P Kirkpatrick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher Bell; Nicholas Dowson; Mike Fay; Paul Thomas; Simon Puttick; Yaniv Gal; Stephen Rose Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: Joseph G Rajendran; David A Mankoff; Finbarr O'Sullivan; Lanell M Peterson; David L Schwartz; Ernest U Conrad; Alexander M Spence; Mark Muzi; D Greg Farwell; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alan T Villavicencio; Sigita Burneikiene; Pantaleo Romanelli; Laura Fariselli; Lee McNeely; John D Lipani; Steven D Chang; E Lee Nelson; Melinda McIntyre; Giovanni Broggi; John R Adler Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: P Chang; J Grinband; B D Weinberg; M Bardis; M Khy; G Cadena; M-Y Su; S Cha; C G Filippi; D Bota; P Baldi; L M Poisson; R Jain; D Chow Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Maximilian Niyazi; Anca L Grosu; Martin Kocher; Karl-Josef Langen; Ian Law; Giuseppe Minniti; Michelle M Kim; Christina Tsien; Frederic Dhermain; Riccardo Soffietti; Minesh P Mehta; Michael Weller; Jörg-Christian Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Bruna V Jardim-Perassi; Wei Mu; Suning Huang; Michal R Tomaszewski; Jan Poleszczuk; Mahmoud A Abdalah; Mikalai M Budzevich; William Dominguez-Viqueira; Damon R Reed; Marilyn M Bui; Joseph O Johnson; Gary V Martinez; Robert J Gillies Journal: Theranostics Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Catherine Coolens; Matt N Gwilliam; Paula Alcaide-Leon; Isabella Maria de Freitas Faria; Fabio Ynoe de Moraes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 6.639