| Literature DB >> 35743228 |
Marija Skoblar Vidmar1,2, Andrej Doma2,3, Uroš Smrdel1,3, Katarina Zevnik2,3, Andrej Studen4,5.
Abstract
The evaluation of treatment response remains a challenge in glioma cases because the neuro oncological therapy can lead to the development of treatment-related changes (TRC) that mimic true progression (TP). Positron emission tomography (PET) using O-(2-[18F] fluoroethyl-)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET) has been shown to be a useful tool for detecting TRC and TP. We assessed the diagnostic performance of different 18F-FET PET segmentation approaches and different imaging biomarkers for differentiation between late TRC and TP in glioma patients. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status was evaluated as a predictor of disease outcome. In our study, the proportion of TRC in IDH wild type (IDHwt) and IDH mutant (IDHm) subgroups was without significant difference. We found that the diagnostic value of static and dynamic biomarkers of 18F-FET PET for discrimination between TRC and TP depends on the IDH mutation status of the tumor. Dynamic 18F-FET PET acquisition proved helpful in the IDH wild type (IDHwt) subgroup, as opposed to the IDH mutant (IDHm) subgroup, providing an early indication to discontinue dynamic imaging in the IDHm subgroup.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FET PET; IDH mutation; biomarkers; glioma; pseudoprogression; radiation necrosis; treatment-related changes; true progression
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743228 PMCID: PMC9224265 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23126787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Analysis of sensitivities, specificities, thresholds and diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FET PET biomarkers in differentiation between late TP and TRC in glioma patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max | Mean | (min) | LR | Max | Mean | (min) | LR | Max | Mean | (min) | LR |
| TP (count, mean, median, range) | |||||||||||
| 4.1 | 2.2 | 26 | 0.8 | 4.2 | 2.2 | 30 | 0.8 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 22 | 0.8 |
| 4.0 | 2.1 | 32 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 40 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 14.5 | |||
| 1.1–8.0 | 0–3.2 | 5–40 | 0.1–1 | 2.1–6.4 | 1.7–3.2 | 7–40 | 0.3–1 | 1.1–8.0 | 0–3.1 | 7–40 | 0.4–1 |
| 2.6 | 1.5 | 35 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 30 | 0.5 | 2.7 | 1.4 | 40 | 0.6 |
| 2.3 | 1.9 | 40 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 32 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 40 | |||
| 1.6–4.2 | 0–2.2 | 12–40 | 0.1–0.8 | 1.9–4.1 | 0–2.2 | 12–40 | 0–0.9 | 1.6–4.2 | 0–2.0 | 40–40 | 0.4–0.6 |
| 3.03 | 2.04 | 32 | 0.79 | 3.03 | 1.96 | 32 | 0.66 | 2.9 | 2.09 | 40 | 0.65 |
| 2.6–3.4 | 1.8–2.3 | 28–36 | 0.7–0.9 | 2.6–3.4 | 1.7–2.3 | 27–37 | 0.6–0.8 | 2.2–3.6 | 1.6–2.6 | 36–40 | 0.6–0.8 |
| 77 | 71 | 48 | 58 | 94 | 88 | 83 | 88 | 64 | 64 | 79 | 79 |
| 60–89 | 53–84 | 32–65 | 41–74 | 73–99 | 66–97 | 54–97 | 66–97 | 39–84 | 39–84 | 52–92 | 52–92 |
| 82 | 91 | 91 | 100 | 83 | 83 | 53 | 83 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 52–92 | 62–98 | 62–98 | 74–100 | 44–97 | 44–97 | 31–74 | 44–97 | 30–95 | 51–100 | 51–100 | 51–100 |
| 79 | 76 | 60 | 69 | 91 | 87 | 61 | 87 | 67 | 72 | 83 | 83 |
| 64–88 | 61–87 | 44–73 | 54–81 | 73–98 | 68–95 | 41–78 | 68–95 | 44–84 | 49–88 | 61–94 | 61–94 |
|
| |||||||||||
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.18 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.01 | 0.61 | 0.01 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Figure 1Receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curves in classifying tumor outcome based on FET-derived parameters for different IDH mutation status groups. All: all patients in the study. IDH1(m): patients with mutated IDH gene. IDH1(wt): patients with IDH wild type. TBRM is TBRmax, TBR(1.6) is TBRmean at SUV 1.6 g/mL cutoff, TTP is time to peak and log Reg is the logistic regression model. The image shows AUC values with associated standard deviation. The asterisk associated brackets identify variables with statistically significant ROC curves as evaluated by a non-parametric significance test.