Feng-Min Liu1,2, Yu-Fei Gao2, Yanyan Kong3, Yihui Guan3, Jinsen Zhang1, Shuai-Hong Li4, Dan Ye5, Wenyu Wen1,6, Chuantao Zuo3, Wei Hua7. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, 12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Neuro-oncology, Changchun, Jilin, China. 3. PET Center, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Neurology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China. 5. The Molecular and Cell Biology Lab, Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 6. State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, 12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China. hs_glioma@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive diagnosis of IDH1 mutation for gliomas has great clinical significance, and PET has natural advantage to detect metabolism, as IDH mutated gliomas share lower glucose consumption. METHODS: Clinical data of patients with gliomas and 18F-FDG PET were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was conducted, and standard uptake value (SUV) was estimated in combination with grades or IDH1 mutation. The glucose consumption was investigated with U251 cells expressing wild-type or mutated IDH1 by glucose assay. Quantification of glucose was determined by HPLC in clinical tissues. Meanwhile, bioinformatics and western blot were applied to analyze the expression level of metabolic enzymes (e.g. HK1, PKM2, PC) in gliomas. RESULTS: Seventy-one glioma cases were enrolled, including 30 carrying IDH1 mutation. The sensitivity and specificity dependent on SUVmax (3.85) predicting IDH1 mutation reached 73.2 and 86.7%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of differentiating grades by SUVmax (3.1) were 92.3 and 64.4%, respectively. Glucose consumption of U251 IDH1 mutant cells (0.209 ± 0.0472 mg/ml) was obviously lower than IDH1wild-type cells (0.978 ± 0.0773 mg/ml, P = 0.0001) and astrocyte controls (0.335 ± 0.0592 mg/ml, P = 0.0451). Meanwhile, the glucose quantity in IDH1mutant glioma samples were significantly lower than those in IDH1 wild-type tissues (1.033 ± 1.19608 vs 6.361 ± 4.3909 mg/g, P = 0.0051). Silico analysis and western blot confirmed that HK1 and PKM2 in IDH1 wild-type gliomas were significantly higher than in IDH1 mutant group, while PC was significantly higher in IDH1 mutant gliomas. CONCLUSION: SUVmax on PET can predict IDH1 mutation with adequate sensitivity and specificity, as is supported by reduced glucose consumption in IDH1 mutant gliomas.
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive diagnosis of IDH1 mutation for gliomas has great clinical significance, and PET has natural advantage to detect metabolism, as IDH mutated gliomas share lower glucose consumption. METHODS: Clinical data of patients with gliomas and 18F-FDG PET were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was conducted, and standard uptake value (SUV) was estimated in combination with grades or IDH1 mutation. The glucose consumption was investigated with U251 cells expressing wild-type or mutated IDH1 by glucose assay. Quantification of glucose was determined by HPLC in clinical tissues. Meanwhile, bioinformatics and western blot were applied to analyze the expression level of metabolic enzymes (e.g. HK1, PKM2, PC) in gliomas. RESULTS: Seventy-one glioma cases were enrolled, including 30 carrying IDH1 mutation. The sensitivity and specificity dependent on SUVmax (3.85) predicting IDH1 mutation reached 73.2 and 86.7%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of differentiating grades by SUVmax (3.1) were 92.3 and 64.4%, respectively. Glucose consumption of U251 IDH1 mutant cells (0.209 ± 0.0472 mg/ml) was obviously lower than IDH1wild-type cells (0.978 ± 0.0773 mg/ml, P = 0.0001) and astrocyte controls (0.335 ± 0.0592 mg/ml, P = 0.0451). Meanwhile, the glucose quantity in IDH1mutant glioma samples were significantly lower than those in IDH1 wild-type tissues (1.033 ± 1.19608 vs 6.361 ± 4.3909 mg/g, P = 0.0051). Silico analysis and western blot confirmed that HK1 and PKM2 in IDH1 wild-type gliomas were significantly higher than in IDH1 mutant group, while PC was significantly higher in IDH1 mutant gliomas. CONCLUSION: SUVmax on PET can predict IDH1 mutation with adequate sensitivity and specificity, as is supported by reduced glucose consumption in IDH1 mutant gliomas.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnosis; Glioma; Glucose; Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation; PET
Authors: M Unterrainer; I Winkelmann; B Suchorska; A Giese; V Wenter; F W Kreth; J Herms; P Bartenstein; J C Tonn; N L Albert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michele Ceccarelli; Floris P Barthel; Tathiane M Malta; Thais S Sabedot; Sofie R Salama; Bradley A Murray; Olena Morozova; Yulia Newton; Amie Radenbaugh; Stefano M Pagnotta; Samreen Anjum; Jiguang Wang; Ganiraju Manyam; Pietro Zoppoli; Shiyun Ling; Arjun A Rao; Mia Grifford; Andrew D Cherniack; Hailei Zhang; Laila Poisson; Carlos Gilberto Carlotti; Daniela Pretti da Cunha Tirapelli; Arvind Rao; Tom Mikkelsen; Ching C Lau; W K Alfred Yung; Raul Rabadan; Jason Huse; Daniel J Brat; Norman L Lehman; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Siyuan Zheng; Kenneth Hess; Ganesh Rao; Matthew Meyerson; Rameen Beroukhim; Lee Cooper; Rehan Akbani; Margaret Wrensch; David Haussler; Kenneth D Aldape; Peter W Laird; David H Gutmann; Houtan Noushmehr; Antonio Iavarone; Roel G W Verhaak Journal: Cell Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Hugues Sicotte; Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Matt L Kosel; Ivan V Smirnov; Gobinda Sarkar; Alissa A Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Corinne E Praska; Anisha R Chada; Chandralekha Halder; Helen M Hansen; Lucie S McCoy; Paige M Bracci; Roxanne Marshall; Shichun Zheng; Gerald F Reis; Alexander R Pico; Brian P O'Neill; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Jason T Huse; Arie Perry; Tarik Tihan; Mitchell S Berger; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Joseph Wiemels; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Sied Kebir; Zain Khurshid; Florian C Gaertner; Markus Essler; Elke Hattingen; Rolf Fimmers; Björn Scheffler; Ulrich Herrlinger; Ralph A Bundschuh; Martin Glas Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-01-31
Authors: Philipp Lohmann; Christoph Lerche; Elena K Bauer; Jan Steger; Gabriele Stoffels; Tobias Blau; Veronika Dunkl; Martin Kocher; Shivakumar Viswanathan; Christian P Filss; Carina Stegmayr; Maximillian I Ruge; Bernd Neumaier; Nadim J Shah; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen; Norbert Galldiks Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 4.379