| Literature DB >> 33023662 |
François Somme1, Laura Bender2, Izzie Jacques Namer3,4, Georges Noël5,6, Caroline Bund3.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is currently the standard of care in the management of primary brain tumors, although certain limitations remain. Metabolic imaging has proven useful for an increasing number of indications in oncology over the past few years, most particularly 18F-FDG PET/CT. In neuro-oncology, 18F-FDG was insufficient to clearly evaluate brain tumors. Amino-acid radiotracers such as 18F-FDOPA were then evaluated in the management of brain diseases, notably tumoral diseases. Even though European guidelines on the use of amino-acid PET in gliomas have been published, it is crucial that future studies standardize acquisition and interpretation parameters. The aim of this article was to systematically review the potential effect of this metabolic imaging technique in numerous steps of the disease: primary and recurrence diagnosis, grading, local and systemic treatment assessment, and prognosis. A total of 41 articles were included and analyzed in this review. It appears that 18F-FDOPA PET holds promise as an effective additional tool in the management of gliomas. More consistent prospective studies are still needed.Entities:
Keywords: F-DOPA; Glioma; Primary brain tumor; Systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33023662 PMCID: PMC7541204 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-00348-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1Flow chart of systematic review of the literature
Fig. 2Summary of the risk of bias and applicability concerns according to the QUADAS-2 tool
Fig. 3Graphic presentation of the risk of bias and applicability concerns according to the QUADAS-2 tool
Performance of 18F-FDOPA in disease detection
| Authors | Year | Patients (#) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | Optimal cut-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pafundi et al. | 2013 | 10 | 72.7 | 100 | 100 | 14.3 | 73.9 | NA (visual analysis) |
| Ledezma et al. | 2009 | 21 | 95.2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA (visual analysis) |
| Tripathi et al. | 2009 | 15 | 100 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA (visual analysis) |
| Chen et al. | 2006 | 81 | 98 | 86 | 95 | 95 | 95 | T/S > 0.75 |
| Beuthien-Baumann et al. | 2003 | 19 | 94 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA (visual analysis) |
NA Not available, NPV Negative predictive value, PPV Positive predictive value, T/S Tumoral uptake divided by striatum uptake
Optimal indices and cut-off to discriminate between low- and high-grade gliomas
| Authors | Year | Patients (#) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Optimal ratio used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patel et al. | 2018 | 45 | 70 | 78 | SUVmax T/ |
| Youland et al. | 2018 | 13 | 85 | 93 | SUVmax T/ |
| Bund et al. | 2017 | 33 | 60 | 100 | SUVmax T/ |
| Janvier et al. | 2015 | 31 | 71 | 100 | SUVmean T/ |
| Nioche et al. | 2013 | 33 | 94 | 66 | SUVmean > 2.5 |
T/N Tumor uptake divided by normal brain uptake.
Performance of 18F-FDOPA in discriminating recurrence from post-therapeutic effects
| Authors | Year | Patients (#) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | Cut-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zaragori et al. | 2020 | 51 | 97.1 | 94.1 | NA | NA | 96 | T/S > 1 |
| Youland et al. | 2018 | 13 | 82 | 50 | NA | NA | NA | T/N > 2.0 |
| Karunanithi et al.a | 2014 | 30 | 100 | 87.5 | NA | NA | 96 | T/S > 0.6 |
| Karunanithi et al.a | 2013 | 35 | 100 | 88.9 | NA | NA | 97.1 | NA (visual) |
| Herrmann et al. | 2013 | 110 | 85.2 | 72.4 | 89.6 | 63.4 | 81.8 | T/ |
| Karunanithi et al.a | 2013 | 28 | 100 | 85.7 | NA | NA | 96.4 | T/N > 1.3 |
NA Not available, NPV Negative predictive value, PPV Positive predictive value, T/N Tumor uptake divided by normal brain uptake, T/S Tumor uptake divided by striatum uptake
a: the results of these studies are based on the same patient population
Optimal indices and cut-off that correlated with prognosis
| Authors | Year | Patients (#) | Population | Optimal index and cut-off | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiaravalloti et al. | 2019 | 133 | II = 68, III = 34, IV = 31 | SUVr > 1.37 | 0.01 |
| Isal et al. | 2018 | 20 | II = 13, III = 7 | SUVmax T/ | 0.04 |
| Rossi Espagnet et al. | 2016 | 12 | II = 12 | SUVmax T/N > 1.7 | 0.05 |
| Villani et al. | 2015 | 50 | II = 50 | SUVmax > 1.75 | 0.005 |
| Dowson et al. | 2014 | 9 | IV = 9 | ΔSUVmax > 4.74 | 0.002 |
| Herrmann et al. | 2014 | 110 | III = 33, IV = 77 | SUVmean T/S > 1.06 | < 0.001 |
| Karunanithi et al. | 2014 | 33 | I = 2, II = 9, III = 6, IV = 16 | SUVmax T/ | 0.005 |
SUVr Tumor uptake divided by contralateral occipital uptake, T/N Tumor uptake divided by normal brain uptake, T/S Tumor uptake divided by striatum uptake.