| Literature DB >> 35171292 |
Gaia Ninatti1, Martina Sollini1,2, Beatrice Bono1,3, Noemi Gozzi2, Daniil Fedorov1, Lidija Antunovic2, Fabrizia Gelardi1,2, Pierina Navarria4, Letterio S Politi1,2, Federico Pessina1,3, Arturo Chiti1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PET with radiolabeled amino acids is used in the preoperative evaluation of patients with glial neoplasms. This study aimed to assess the role of [11C]methionine (MET) PET in assessing molecular features, tumor extent, and prognosis in newly diagnosed lower-grade gliomas (LGGs) surgically treated.Entities:
Keywords: [11C]methionine PET; brain tumors; lower-grade gliomas; prognosis; surgery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35171292 PMCID: PMC9435504 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noac040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuro Oncol ISSN: 1522-8517 Impact factor: 13.029
Summary of Demographic, Clinical, and Histomolecular Characteristics for All Patients and for LGG Types Considered Separately
| Variable | All Types |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | Median | N (%) | Median | N (%) | Median | ||
| Age at surgery | 40 (31–49) | 41 (34–50) | 36 (28–46) |
| |||
| ECOG PS at surgery | .068 | ||||||
| 0 | 148 (97%) | 88 (95%) | 60 (100%) | ||||
| ≥1 | 5 (3%) | 5 (5%) | 0 | ||||
| Extent of resection (EOR) | .127 | ||||||
| Complete | 110 (72%) | 71 (76%) | 39 (65%) | ||||
| Incomplete | 43 (28%) | 22 (24%) | 21 (35%) | ||||
| Adjuvant treatment |
| ||||||
| None | 66 (43%) | 45 (51%) | 21 (41%) | ||||
| RT-CT | 21 (14%) | 10 (11%) | 11 (22%) | ||||
| CT | 27 (17%) | 25 (29%) | 2 (4%) | ||||
| RT | 25 (16%) | 8 (9%) | 17 (33%) | ||||
| NA | 14 | 5 | 9 | ||||
| MRI contrast enhancement | .064 | ||||||
| Yes | 32 (21%) | 24 (26%) | 8 (13%) | ||||
| No | 121 (79%) | 69 (74%) | 52 (87%) | ||||
| 2021 WHO grade | .479 | ||||||
| 2 | 87 (57%) | 55 (59%) | 32 (53%) | ||||
| 3 | 66 (43%) | 38 (41%) | 28 (47%) | ||||
| Ki-67 ( | 4% (3–8%) | 4% (3–8%) | 4% (3–6%) | .2475 | |||
|
| .237 | ||||||
| Methylated | 131 (95%) | 85 (97%) | 46 (92%) | ||||
| Nonmethylated | 7 (5%) | 3 (3%) | 4 (8%) | ||||
| NA | 15 | 5 | 10 | ||||
|
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 33 (46%) | 3 (7.5%) | 30 (94%) | ||||
| No | 39 (54%) | 37 (92.5%) | 2 (6%) | ||||
| NA | 81 | 53 | 28 | ||||
|
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 37 (61%) | 7 (23%) | 30 (100%) | ||||
| No | 24 (39%) | 24 (77%) | 0 | ||||
| NA | 92 | 62 | 30 |
NA, not available.
Figure 1[11C]MET PET qualitative analysis results by WHO LGG type.
Figure 2[11C]MET PET semi-quantitative analysis results by WHO LGG type. Median TBRmax (A), and TBRmean (B) values with interquartile ranges are shown for each type of LGG separately.
Figure 3Examples of lesions demonstrating increased [11C]MET uptake (red arrows) outside FLAIR alterations in (1) a 54-year-old patient with a right fronto-temporo-insular WHO grade 3 IDH-mutant astrocytoma; and (2) a 40-year-old patient with a bilateral thalamic and temporo-parietal WHO grade 3 oligodendroglioma. For each patient, (a) axial [11C]MET PET/CT, (b) axial T2-weighted FLAIR MRI images, and (c) axial postcontrast T1-weighted MRI images are shown.
Univariate and Multivariable Cox Regression Analysis of PFS for Oligodendrogliomas
| Variable | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Sex (female vs. male) | 0.844 | 0.401–1.776 | .655 | |||
| Age | 0.988 | 0.960–1.018 | .435 | |||
| ECOG PS (≥1 vs. 0) | NA | |||||
| Grade (grade 2 vs. grade 3) | 0.521 | 0.262–1.036 | .063 | |||
| % Ki-67 | 1.027 | 0.991–1.063 | .141 | |||
|
| NA | |||||
| EOR (complete vs. incomplete) | 0.351 | 0.169–0.727 |
| 0.322 | 0.145–0.713 |
|
| Postoperative treatments (yes vs. no) | 2.100 | 1.042–4.233 |
| |||
| Contrast enhancement (yes vs. no) | 0.968 | 0.449–2.087 | .934 | |||
| PET qualitative (PET+ vs. PET–) | 1.476 | 0.518–4.210 | .466 | |||
| TBRmax | 1.037 | 0.822–1.309 | .756 | |||
| TBRmean | 1.028 | 0.484–2.181 | .943 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NA, not applicable as a stratification factor.
Variables selected for the multivariate analysis are reported in bold.
*Variables selected for the multivariate analysis.
Univariate and Multivariable Cox Regression Analysis of PFS for IDH-Mutant Astrocytomas
| Variable | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Sex (female vs. male) | 1.457 | 0.651–3.261 | .360 | |||
| Age | 1.028 | 0.999–1.059 | .058 | |||
| ECOG PS (≥1 vs. 0) | NA | |||||
| Grade (grade 2 vs. grade 3) | 1.439 | 0.627–3.306 | .391 | |||
| % Ki-67 | 1.010 | 0.941–1.084 | .790 | |||
|
| NA | |||||
| EOR (complete vs. incomplete) | 0.341 | 0.148–0.790 |
| 0.292 | 0.101–0.848 |
|
| Postoperative treatments (yes vs. no) | 0.812 | 0.356–1.855 | .622 | |||
| Contrast enhancement (yes vs. no) | 0.396 | 0.0527–2.982 | .369 | |||
| PET qualitative (PET+ vs. PET–) | 2.062 | 0.896–4.742 | .089 | |||
| TBRmax | 1.827 | 1.395–2.394 |
| 3.849 | 1.663–11.321 |
|
| TBRmean | 4.219 | 1.754–10.149 |
|
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NA, not applicable as a stratification factor.
Variables selected for the multivariate analysis are reported in bold.
*Variables selected for the multivariate analysis.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS for IDH-mutant astrocytomas stratified according to extent of surgical resection (A) and TBRmax (B). *variables selected for the multivariate analysis. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NA, not applicable as a stratification factor.