Mariam S Aboian1,2, Shih-Ying Huang1, Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni1, Randall A Hawkins1, Henry F VanBrocklin1, Yoonsuk Huh1, Kieuhoa T Vo3, W Clay Gustafson3, Katherine K Matthay3, Youngho Seo4,5. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California youngho.seo@ucsf.edu. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
The metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan is one of the most sensitive noninvasive lesion detection modalities for neuroblastoma. Unlike 123I-MIBG, 124I-MIBG allows high-resolution PET. We evaluated 124I-MIBG PET/CT for its diagnostic performance as directly compared with paired 123I-MIBG scans. Methods: Before 131I-MIBG therapy, standard 123I-MIBG imaging (5.2 MBq/kg) was performed on 7 patients, including whole-body (anterior-posterior) planar imaging, focused-field-of-view SPECT/CT, and whole-body 124I-MIBG PET/CT (1.05 MBq/kg). After therapy, 2 of 7 patients also completed 124I-MIBG PET/CT as well as paired 123I-MIBG planar imaging and SPECT/CT. One patient underwent 124I-MIBG PET/CT only after therapy. We evaluated all 8 patients who showed at least 1 123I-MIBG-positive lesion with a total of 10 scans. In 8 pairs, 123I-MIBG and 124I-MIBG were performed within 1 mo of each other. The locations of identified lesions, the number of total lesions, and the curie scores were recorded for the 123I-MIBG and 124I-MIBG scans. Finally, for 5 patients who completed at least 3 PET/CT scans after administration of 124I-MIBG, we estimated the effective dose of 124I-MIBG. Results: 123I-MIBG whole-body planar scans, focused-field-of-view SPECT/CT scans, and whole-body 124I-MIBG PET scans found 25, 32, and 87 total lesions, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in lesion detection for 124I-MIBG PET/CT versus 123I-MIBG planar imaging (P < 0.0001) and 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT (P < 0.0001). The curie scores were also higher for 124I-MIBG PET/CT than for 123I-MIBG planar imaging and SPECT/CT in 6 of 10 patients. 124I-MIBG PET/CT demonstrated better detection of lesions throughout the body, including the chest, spine, head and neck, and extremities. The effective dose estimated for patient-specific 124I-MIBG was approximately 10 times that of 123I-MIBG; however, given that we administered a very low activity of 124I-MIBG (1.05 MBq/kg), the effective dose was only approximately twice that of 123I-MIBG despite the large difference in half-lives (100 vs. 13.2 h). Conclusion: The first-in-humans use of low-dose 124I-MIBG PET for monitoring disease burden demonstrated tumor detection capability superior to that of 123I-MIBG planar imaging and SPECT/CT.
The metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan is one of the most sensitive noninvasive lesion detection modalities for neuroblastoma. Unlike 123I-MIBG, 124I-MIBG allows high-resolution PET. We evaluated 124I-MIBG PET/CT for its diagnostic performance as directly compared with paired 123I-MIBG scans. Methods: Before 131I-MIBG therapy, standard 123I-MIBG imaging (5.2 MBq/kg) was performed on 7 patients, including whole-body (anterior-posterior) planar imaging, focused-field-of-view SPECT/CT, and whole-body 124I-MIBG PET/CT (1.05 MBq/kg). After therapy, 2 of 7 patients also completed 124I-MIBG PET/CT as well as paired 123I-MIBG planar imaging and SPECT/CT. One patient underwent 124I-MIBG PET/CT only after therapy. We evaluated all 8 patients who showed at least 1 123I-MIBG-positive lesion with a total of 10 scans. In 8 pairs, 123I-MIBG and 124I-MIBG were performed within 1 mo of each other. The locations of identified lesions, the number of total lesions, and the curie scores were recorded for the 123I-MIBG and 124I-MIBG scans. Finally, for 5 patients who completed at least 3 PET/CT scans after administration of 124I-MIBG, we estimated the effective dose of 124I-MIBG. Results: 123I-MIBG whole-body planar scans, focused-field-of-view SPECT/CT scans, and whole-body 124I-MIBG PET scans found 25, 32, and 87 total lesions, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in lesion detection for 124I-MIBG PET/CT versus 123I-MIBG planar imaging (P < 0.0001) and 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT (P < 0.0001). The curie scores were also higher for 124I-MIBG PET/CT than for 123I-MIBG planar imaging and SPECT/CT in 6 of 10 patients. 124I-MIBG PET/CT demonstrated better detection of lesions throughout the body, including the chest, spine, head and neck, and extremities. The effective dose estimated for patient-specific 124I-MIBG was approximately 10 times that of 123I-MIBG; however, given that we administered a very low activity of 124I-MIBG (1.05 MBq/kg), the effective dose was only approximately twice that of 123I-MIBG despite the large difference in half-lives (100 vs. 13.2 h). Conclusion: The first-in-humans use of low-dose 124I-MIBG PET for monitoring disease burden demonstrated tumor detection capability superior to that of 123I-MIBG planar imaging and SPECT/CT.
Authors: Zvi Bar-Sever; Lorenzo Biassoni; Barry Shulkin; Grace Kong; Michael S Hofman; Egesta Lopci; Irina Manea; Jacek Koziorowski; Rita Castellani; Ariane Boubaker; Bieke Lambert; Thomas Pfluger; Helen Nadel; Susan Sharp; Francesco Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Youngho Seo; W Clay Gustafson; Shorouk F Dannoon; Erin A Nekritz; Chang-Lae Lee; Stephanie T Murphy; Henry F VanBrocklin; Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; William A Weiss; Katherine K Matthay Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Shih-ying Huang; Wesley E Bolch; Choonsik Lee; Henry F Van Brocklin; Miguel H Pampaloni; Randall A Hawkins; Aimee Sznewajs; Steven G DuBois; Katherine K Matthay; Youngho Seo Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Chang-Lae Lee; Hilla Wahnishe; George A Sayre; Hyo-Min Cho; Hee-Joung Kim; Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni; Randall A Hawkins; Shorouk F Dannoon; Henry F VanBrocklin; Melissa Itsara; William A Weiss; Xiaodong Yang; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Katherine K Matthay; Youngho Seo Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Gregory A Yanik; Marguerite T Parisi; Arlene Naranjo; Helen Nadel; Michael J Gelfand; Julie R Park; Ruth L Ladenstein; Ulrike Poetschger; Ariane Boubaker; Dominique Valteau-Couanet; Bieke Lambert; Maria-Rita Castellani; Zvi Bar-Sever; Aurore Oudoux; Anna Kaminska; Susan G Kreissman; Barry L Shulkin; Katherine K Matthay Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nehal S Parikh; Scott C Howard; Guillermo Chantada; Trijn Israels; Mohammed Khattab; Patricia Alcasabas; Catherine G Lam; Lawrence Faulkner; Julie R Park; Wendy B London; Katherine K Matthay Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Brian M Quinn; Yiming Gao; Usman Mahmood; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Gerald Behr; Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence T Dauer Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Manuel Weber; Jochen Schmitz; Ines Maric; Kim Pabst; Lale Umutlu; Martin Walz; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler; Frank Weber; Walter Jentzen; Sarah Theurer; Thorsten D Poeppel; Nicole Unger; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Stephen Turnock; David R Turton; Carlos Daniel Martins; Louis Chesler; Thomas C Wilson; Véronique Gouverneur; Graham Smith; Gabriela Kramer-Marek Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.379