Mariam Aboian1, Ramon Barajas2, Julia Shatalov1, Vahid Ravanfar3, Emma Bahroos3, Elizabeth Tong4, Jennie W Taylor5,6, N Oberheim Bush5, Patricia Sneed7, Youngho Seo3, Soonmee Cha3, Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni3. 1. Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 2. Department of Radiology, Oregon Health Sciences University. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amino acid PET imaging of brain tumors has been shown to play an important role in predicting tumor grade, delineation of tumor margins, and differentiating tumor recurrence from the background of postradiation changes, but is not commonly used in clinical practice because of high cost. We propose that PET/MRI imaging of patients grouped to the day of tracer radiosynthesis will significantly decrease the cost of PET imaging, which will improve patient access to PET. METHODS: Seventeen patients with either primary brain tumors or metastatic brain tumors were recruited for imaging on 3T PET/MRI and were scanned on 4 separate days in groups of 3 to 5 patients. The first group of consecutively imaged patients contained 3 patients, followed by 2 groups of 5 patients, and a last group of 4 patients. RESULTS: For each of the patients, standard of care gadolinium-enhanced MRI and dynamic PET imaging with 18F-FDOPA amino acid tracer was obtained. The total cost savings of scanning 17 patients in batches of 4 as opposed to individual radiosynthesis was 48.5% ($28 321). Semiquantitative analysis of tracer uptake in normal brain were performed with appropriate accumulation and expected subsequent washout. CONCLUSION: Amino acid PET tracers have been shown to play a critical role in the characterization of brain tumors but their adaptation to clinical practice has been limited because of the high cost of PET. Scheduling patient imaging to maximally use the radiosynthesis of imaging tracer significantly reduces the cost of PET and results in increased availability of PET tracer use in neuro-oncology.
BACKGROUND: Amino acid PET imaging of brain tumors has been shown to play an important role in predicting tumor grade, delineation of tumor margins, and differentiating tumor recurrence from the background of postradiation changes, but is not commonly used in clinical practice because of high cost. We propose that PET/MRI imaging of patients grouped to the day of tracer radiosynthesis will significantly decrease the cost of PET imaging, which will improve patient access to PET. METHODS: Seventeen patients with either primary brain tumors or metastatic brain tumors were recruited for imaging on 3T PET/MRI and were scanned on 4 separate days in groups of 3 to 5 patients. The first group of consecutively imaged patients contained 3 patients, followed by 2 groups of 5 patients, and a last group of 4 patients. RESULTS: For each of the patients, standard of care gadolinium-enhanced MRI and dynamic PET imaging with 18F-FDOPA amino acid tracer was obtained. The total cost savings of scanning 17 patients in batches of 4 as opposed to individual radiosynthesis was 48.5% ($28 321). Semiquantitative analysis of tracer uptake in normal brain were performed with appropriate accumulation and expected subsequent washout. CONCLUSION: Amino acid PET tracers have been shown to play a critical role in the characterization of brain tumors but their adaptation to clinical practice has been limited because of the high cost of PET. Scheduling patient imaging to maximally use the radiosynthesis of imaging tracer significantly reduces the cost of PET and results in increased availability of PET tracer use in neuro-oncology.
Authors: T Vander Borght; S Asenbaum; P Bartenstein; C Halldin; O Kapucu; K Van Laere; A Varrone; K Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christopher L Tinkle; Elizabeth C Duncan; Mikhail Doubrovin; Yuanyuan Han; Yimei Li; Hyun Kim; Alberto Broniscer; Scott E Snyder; Thomas E Merchant; Barry L Shulkin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ismini C Mainta; Daniela Perani; Benedicte M A Delattre; Frederic Assal; Sven Haller; Maria I Vargas; Dina S Zekry; Giovanni B Frisoni; Habib Zaidi; Osman Ratib; Valentina Garibotto Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2017 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: C Riola-Parada; L García-Cañamaque; V Pérez-Dueñas; M Garcerant-Tafur; J L Carreras-Delgado Journal: Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Ian Law; Nathalie L Albert; Javier Arbizu; Ronald Boellaard; Alexander Drzezga; Norbert Galldiks; Christian la Fougère; Karl-Josef Langen; Egesta Lopci; Val Lowe; Jonathan McConathy; Harald H Quick; Bernhard Sattler; David M Schuster; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Michael Weller Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Antoine Verger; Carina Stegmayr; Norbert Galldiks; Axel Van Der Gucht; Philipp Lohmann; Gabriele Stoffels; Nadim J Shah; Gereon R Fink; Simon B Eickhoff; Eric Guedj; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.881