Advertisement

MRI-suspected low-grade glioma: is there a need to perform dynamic FET PET?

  • Nathalie L. Jansen
  • Vera Graute
  • Lena Armbruster
  • Bogdana Suchorska
  • Juergen Lutz
  • Sabina Eigenbrod
  • Paul Cumming
  • Peter Bartenstein
  • Jörg-Christian Tonn
  • Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth
  • Christian la FougèreEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Since differentiation between low-grade glioma (LGG) and high-grade glioma (HGG) remains challenging according to MRI criteria alone, we investigated the discriminative value of additional dynamic FET PET in patients with MRI-suspected LGG.

Methods

Included in this retrospective study were 127 patients with newly diagnosed MRI-suspected LGG and dynamic FET PET prior to histopathological assessment. FET PET lesions were visually classified as having reduced, normal, or increased tracer uptake. Maximal tumour uptake scaled to the mean background uptake (SUVmax/BG), mean tumour uptake (SUVmean/BG), biological tumour volume and kinetics were evaluated and correlated with individual histopathological findings.

Results

Histopathological analysis revealed 71 patients with LGG, 47 patients with HGG (including 5 glioblastoma multiforme), 2 patients with low-grade ganglioglioma and 7 patients with non-neoplastic lesions. Of the 127 patients, 97 had lesions with increased FET uptake, of which 93 were neoplastic. Increased uptake was found in 49/71 LGG (69 %) and 42/47 HGG (89 %). None of the conventional uptake parameters differed significantly between the HGG and LGG groups. Kinetic analysis reliably identified HGG (sensitivity 95 %, specificity 72 %, PPV 74 %, NPV 95 %). Normal tracer uptake was observed in 19 patients (15 with LGG, 1 with HGG and 3 with non-neoplastic lesions) and reduced uptake in 11 patients (7 with LGG and 4 with HGG).

Conclusion

Among the MRI-suspected LGG, kinetic but not conventional analysis of FET uptake enabled remarkably high sensitivity for detection of HGG. This held true even for lesions with low or diffuse tracer uptake. Lesions with reduced tracer uptake must be interpreted with caution, as they can also harbour HGG tissue.

Keywords

Non-contrast-enhancing brain lesions FET PET Kinetic analysis Non-invasive grading 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was funded in part by the German Glioma Network, supported by German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe 70-3163-Wi 3).

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Ginsberg LE, Fuller GN, Hashmi M, Leeds NE, Schomer DF. The significance of lack of MR contrast enhancement of supratentorial brain tumors in adults: histopathological evaluation of a series. Surg Neurol. 1998;49:436–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Martinez AJ. Unreliability of contemporary neurodiagnostic imaging in evaluating suspected adult supratentorial (low-grade) astrocytoma. J Neurosurg. 1993;79:533–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott JN, Brasher PM, Sevick RJ, Rewcastle NB, Forsyth PA. How often are nonenhancing supratentorial gliomas malignant? A population study. Neurology. 2002;59:947–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker 2nd FG, Chang SM, Huhn SL, Davis RL, Gutin PH, McDermott MW, et al. Age and the risk of anaplasia in magnetic resonance-nonenhancing supratentorial cerebral tumors. Cancer. 1997;80:936–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popperl G, Gotz C, Rachinger W, Gildehaus FJ, Tonn JC, Tatsch K. Value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:1464–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Niyazi M, Geisler J, Siefert A, Schwarz SB, Ganswindt U, Garny S, et al. FET-PET for malignant glioma treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2011;99:44–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Popperl G, Kreth FW, Herms J, Koch W, Mehrkens JH, Gildehaus FJ, et al. Analysis of 18F-FET PET for grading of recurrent gliomas: is evaluation of uptake kinetics superior to standard methods? J Nucl Med. 2006;47:393–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Popperl G, Kreth FW, Mehrkens JH, Herms J, Seelos K, Koch W, et al. FET PET for the evaluation of untreated gliomas: correlation of FET uptake and uptake kinetics with tumour grading. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1933–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weckesser M, Langen KJ, Rickert CH, Kloska S, Straeter R, Hamacher K, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluorethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in the clinical evaluation of primary brain tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:422–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kunz M, Thon N, Eigenbrod S, Hartmann C, Egensperger R, Herms J, et al. Hot spots in dynamic (18)FET-PET delineate malignant tumor parts within suspected WHO grade II gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13:307–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coope DJ, Cizek J, Eggers C, Vollmar S, Heiss WD, Herholz K. Evaluation of primary brain tumors using 11C-methionine PET with reference to a normal methionine uptake map. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1971–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Floeth FW, Pauleit D, Wittsack HJ, Langen KJ, Reifenberger G, Hamacher K, et al. Multimodal metabolic imaging of cerebral gliomas: positron emission tomography with [18F]fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Neurosurg. 2005;102:318–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herholz K, Holzer T, Bauer B, Schroder R, Voges J, Ernestus RI, et al. 11C-methionine PET for differential diagnosis of low-grade gliomas. Neurology. 1998;50:1316–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kracht LW, Miletic H, Busch S, Jacobs AH, Voges J, Hoevels M, et al. Delineation of brain tumor extent with [11C]L-methionine positron emission tomography: local comparison with stereotactic histopathology. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:7163–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pauleit D, Floeth F, Hamacher K, Riemenschneider MJ, Reifenberger G, Muller HW, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET combined with MRI improves the diagnostic assessment of cerebral gliomas. Brain. 2005;128:678–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stockhammer F, Misch M, Horn P, Koch A, Fonyuy N, Plotkin M. Association of F18-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosin uptake and 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced fluorescence in gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2009;151:1377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thiele F, Ehmer J, Piroth MD, Eble MJ, Coenen HH, Kaiser HJ, et al. The quantification of dynamic FET PET imaging and correlation with the clinical outcome in patients with glioblastoma. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:5525–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ullrich RT, Kracht L, Brunn A, Herholz K, Frommolt P, Miletic H, et al. Methyl-L-11C-methionine PET as a diagnostic marker for malignant progression in patients with glioma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1962–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vees H, Senthamizhchelvan S, Miralbell R, Weber DC, Ratib O, Zaidi H. Assessment of various strategies for 18F-FET PET-guided delineation of target volumes in high-grade glioma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:182–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weber WA, Wester HJ, Grosu AL, Herz M, Dzewas B, Feldmann HJ, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine and L-[methyl-11C]methionine uptake in brain tumours: initial results of a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:542–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    la Fougere C, Suchorska B, Bartenstein P, Kreth FW, Tonn JC. Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: opportunities and limitations. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13:806–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Langstrom B, Lundqvist H. The preparation of 11C-methyl iodide and its use in the synthesis of 11C-methyl-L-methionine. Int J Appl Radiat Isot. 1976;27:357–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wienhard K, Herholz K, Coenen HH, Rudolf J, Kling P, Stocklin G, et al. Increased amino acid transport into brain tumors measured by PET of L-(2-18F)fluorotyrosine. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1338–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wester HJ, Herz M, Weber W, Heiss P, Senekowitsch-Schmidtke R, Schwaiger M, et al. Synthesis and radiopharmacology of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine for tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:205–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ishiwata K, Kubota K, Murakami M, Kubota R, Sasaki T, Ishii S, et al. Re-evaluation of amino acid PET studies: can the protein synthesis rates in brain and tumor tissues be measured in vivo? J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1936–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Langen KJ, Jarosch M, Muhlensiepen H, Hamacher K, Broer S, Jansen P, et al. Comparison of fluorotyrosines and methionine uptake in F98 rat gliomas. Nucl Med Biol. 2003;30:501–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plotkin M, Blechschmidt C, Auf G, Nyuyki F, Geworski L, Denecke T, et al. Comparison of F-18 FET-PET with F-18 FDG-PET for biopsy planning of non-contrast-enhancing gliomas. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2496–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Plotkin M, Gneveckow U, Meier-Hauff K, Amthauer H, Feussner A, Denecke T, et al. 18F-FET PET for planning of thermotherapy using magnetic nanoparticles in recurrent glioblastoma. Int J Hyperthermia. 2006;22:319–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rickhey M, Koelbl O, Eilles C, Bogner L. A biologically adapted dose-escalation approach, demonstrated for 18F-FET-PET in brain tumors. Strahlenther Onkol. 2008;184:536–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber DC, Zilli T, Buchegger F, Casanova N, Haller G, Rouzaud M, et al. [(18)F]Fluoroethyltyrosine-positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for high-grade glioma. Radiat Oncol. 2008;3:44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Popperl G, Gotz C, Rachinger W, Schnell O, Gildehaus FJ, Tonn JC, et al. Serial O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for monitoring the effects of intracavitary radioimmunotherapy in patients with malignant glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:792–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang I, Aghi MK. New advances that enable identification of glioblastoma recurrence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6:648–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hutterer M, Nowosielski M, Putzer D, Waitz D, Tinkhauser G, Kostron H, et al. O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET predicts failure of antiangiogenic treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:856–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Floeth FW, Pauleit D, Sabel M, Reifenberger G, Stoffels G, Stummer W, et al. 18F-FET PET differentiation of ring-enhancing brain lesions. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:776–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Floeth FW, Pauleit D, Sabel M, Stoffels G, Reifenberger G, Riemenschneider MJ, et al. Prognostic value of O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET and MRI in low-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:519–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Floeth FW, Sabel M, Stoffels G, Pauleit D, Hamacher K, Steiger HJ, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine PET and MRI in small nonspecific incidental brain lesions. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:730–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pichler R, Dunzinger A, Wurm G, Pichler J, Weis S, Nussbaumer K, et al. Is there a place for FET PET in the initial evaluation of brain lesions with unknown significance? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1521–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Padma MV, Said S, Jacobs M, Hwang DR, Dunigan K, Satter M, et al. Prediction of pathology and survival by FDG PET in gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2003;64:227–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kracht LW, Friese M, Herholz K, Schroeder R, Bauer B, Jacobs A, et al. Methyl-[11C]-l-methionine uptake as measured by positron emission tomography correlates to microvessel density in patients with glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:868–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nojiri T, Nariai T, Aoyagi M, Senda M, Ishii K, Ishiwata K, et al. Contributions of biological tumor parameters to the incorporation rate of L-[methyl-(11)C]methionine into astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas. J Neurooncol. 2009;93:233–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kaim AH, Weber B, Kurrer MO, Westera G, Schweitzer A, Gottschalk J, et al. (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FET uptake in experimental soft tissue infection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:648–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rau FC, Weber WA, Wester HJ, Herz M, Becker I, Kruger A, et al. O-(2-[(18)F]Fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET): a tracer for differentiation of tumour from inflammation in murine lymph nodes. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1039–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Salber D, Stoffels G, Pauleit D, Reifenberger G, Sabel M, Shah NJ, et al. Differential uptake of [18F]FET and [3H]l-methionine in focal cortical ischemia. Nucl Med Biol. 2006;33:1029–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Salber D, Stoffels G, Pauleit D, Oros-Peusquens AM, Shah NJ, Klauth P, et al. Differential uptake of O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine, L-3H-methionine, and 3H-deoxyglucose in brain abscesses. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:2056–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie L. Jansen
    • 1
  • Vera Graute
    • 1
  • Lena Armbruster
    • 2
  • Bogdana Suchorska
    • 2
  • Juergen Lutz
    • 3
  • Sabina Eigenbrod
    • 4
  • Paul Cumming
    • 1
  • Peter Bartenstein
    • 1
  • Jörg-Christian Tonn
    • 2
  • Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth
    • 2
  • Christian la Fougère
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeuroradiologyLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of NeuropathologyLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations