FET PET for the evaluation of untreated gliomas: correlation of FET uptake and uptake kinetics with tumour grading
- 1.1k Downloads
Treatment and prognosis of gliomas depend on their histological tumour grade. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential of [18F]fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) PET for non-invasive tumour grading in untreated patients.
Dynamic FET PET studies were performed in 54 patients who, based on MRI, were estimated to have low grade (LG; n = 20), intermediate (WHO II–III; n = 4) or high grade (HG; n = 30) tumours. For standard evaluation, tumour SUVmax and the ratio to background (SUVmax/BG) were calculated (sum image: 20–40 min). For dynamic evaluation, mean SUV values within a 90% isocontour ROI (SUV90) and the SUV90/BG ratios were determined for each time frame to evaluate the course of FET uptake. Results were correlated with histopathological findings from PET-guided stereotactic biopsies.
Histology revealed gliomas in all patients. Using the standard method a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) was found between LG (n = 20; SUVmax/BG: 2.16 ± 0.98) and HG (n = 34; SUVmax/BG: 3.29 ± 1.06) gliomas (opt. threshold 2.58: SN71%/SP85%/area under ROC curve [AUC]:0.798), however, with a marked overlap between WHO II to IV tumours. Time activity curves showed slight increase in LG, whereas HG tumours presented with an early peak (10–20 min) followed by a decrease. Dynamic evaluation successfully separated LG from HG gliomas with higher diagnostic accuracy (SN94%/SP100%/AUC:0.967).
Based on the ratio-based method, a statistically significant difference was found between LG and HG gliomas. Due to the interindividual variability, however, no reliable individual grading was possible. In contrast, dynamic evaluation allowed LG and HG gliomas to be differentiated with high diagnostic power and, thus, should supplement the conventional method.
KeywordsUntreated gliomas Grading Dynamic FET PET Stereotactic biopsy
Part of this work was supported by grant 10-3163-Wi3 from Deutsche Krebshilfe.
- 2.Kleihues P, Cavenee WK. Tumors of the nervous system. Pathology and genetics. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2000.Google Scholar
- 10.Van Laere K, Ceyssens S, Van Calenbergh F, de Groot T, Menten J, Flamen P, et al. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET in suspected recurrence of glioma: sensitivity, inter-observer variability and prognostic value. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:39–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Rachinger W, Goetz C, Popperl G, Gildehaus FJ, Kreth FW, Holtmannspotter M, et al. Positron emission tomography with O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery 2005;57:505–11, discussion 505–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Popperl G, Goldbrunner R, Gildehaus FJ, Kreth FW, Tanner P, Holtmannspotter M, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for monitoring the effects of convection-enhanced delivery of paclitaxel in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:1018–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Stober B, Tanase U, Herz M, Seidl C, Schwaiger M, Senekowitsch-Schmidtke R. Differentiation of tumour and inflammation: characterisation of [methyl-3H]methionine (MET) and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) uptake in human tumour and inflammatory cells. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:932–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar