Overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with primary brain tumors after treatment: is the outcome of [18F] FDOPA PET a prognostic factor in these patients?
To investigate the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) in a population affected by primary brain tumors (PBT) evaluated by [18F]-l-dihydroxyphenylalanine ([18F] FDOPA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT).
Materials and methods
133 subjects with PBT (65 women and 68 men, mean age 45 ± 10 years old) underwent 18F FDOPA PET/CT after treatment. Of them, 68 (51.2%) were Grade II, 34 (25.5%) were Grade III and 31 (23.3%) were Grade IV. PET/CT was scored as positive or negative and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) was calculated as the ratio between SUVmax of the lesion vs. that of the background. Patients have been observed for a mean of 24 months.
The outcome of [18F] FDOPA PET/CT scan was significantly related to the OS and PFS in Grade II gliomas. In Grade II PBT, the OS proportions at 24 months were 100% in subjects with a negative PET/CT scan and 82% in those with a positive scan. Gehan–Breslow–Wilcoxon test showed a significant difference in the OS curves (P = 0.03) and the hazard-ratio was equal to 5.1 (95% CI of ratio 1.1–23.88). As for PFS, the proportion at 24 months was 90% in subjects with a negative PET/CT scan and 58% in those with a positive scan. Gehan–Breslow–Wilcoxon test showed a significant difference in the OS curves (P = 0.007) and the hazard-ratio was equal to 4.1 (95% CI of ratio 1.3–8). We did not find any significant relationship between PET outcome and OS and PFS in Grade III and IV PBT.
A positive [18F] FDOPA PET/CT scan is related to a poor OS and PFS in subjects with low-grade PBT. This imaging modality could be considered as a prognostic factor in these subjects.
Keywords[18F] FDOPA PET/CT Prognostic value Survival Brain tumors Tumor relapse
The authors wish to thank Tiziana Martino (IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, IT) for data collection.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
- 1.Weller M, van den Bent M, Tonn JC, Stupp R, Preusser M, Cohen-Jonathan-Moyal E, et al. European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e315–e329329. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30194-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Cicone F, Filss CP, Minniti G, Rossi-Espagnet C, Papa A, Scaringi C, et al. Volumetric assessment of recurrent or progressive gliomas: comparison between F-DOPA PET and perfusion-weighted MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:905–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3018-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Chaichana KL, Jusue-Torres I, Navarro-Ramirez R, Raza SM, Pascual-Gallego M, Ibrahim A, et al. Establishing percent resection and residual volume thresholds affecting survival and recurrence for patients with newly diagnosed intracranial glioblastoma. Neuro-oncology. 2014;16:113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Villani V, Carapella CM, Chiaravalloti A, Terrenato I, Piludu F, Vidiri A, et al. The role of PET [18F]FDOPA in evaluating low-grade glioma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:5117–222.Google Scholar
- 17.Lizarraga KJ, Allen-Auerbach M, Czernin J, DeSalles AA, Yong WH, Phelps ME, et al. (18)F-FDOPA PET for differentiating recurrent or progressive brain metastatic tumors from late or delayed radiation injury after radiation treatment. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:30–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.121418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Albert NL, Weller M, Suchorska B, Galldiks N, Soffietti R, Kim MM, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group and European Association for Neuro-Oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro-oncology. 2016;18:1199–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar