Advertisement

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 56, Issue 8, pp 953–961 | Cite as

Population Pharmacokinetic Approach Applied to Positron Emission Tomography: Computed Tomography for Tumor Tissue Identification in Patients with Glioma

  • Peggy Gandia
  • Cyril Jaudet
  • Hendrik Everaert
  • Johannes Heemskerk
  • Anne Marie Vanbinst
  • Johan de Mey
  • Johnny Duerinck
  • Bart Neyns
  • Mark de Ridder
  • Etienne Chatelut
  • Didier Concordet
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background and Aims

18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine (FET) is a radiopharmaceutical used in positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography in patients with glioma. We propose an original approach combining a radiotracer-pharmacokinetic exploration performed at the voxel level (three-dimensional pixel) and voxel classification to identify tumor tissue. Our methodology was validated using the standard FET-PET approach and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data acquired according to the current clinical practices.

Methods

FET-PET and MRI data were retrospectively analyzed in ten patients presenting with progressive high-grade glioma. For FET-PET exploration, radioactivity acquisition started 15 min after radiotracer injection, and was measured each 5 min during 40 min. The tissue segmentation relies on population pharmacokinetic modeling with dependent individuals (voxels). This model can be approximated by a linear mixed-effects model. The tumor volumes estimated by our approach were compared with those determined with the current clinical techniques, FET-PET standard approach (i.e., a cumulated value of FET signal is computed during a time interval) and MRI sequences (T1 and T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR]), used as references. The T1 sequence is useful to identify highly vascular tumor and necrotic tissues, while the T2/FLAIR sequence is useful to isolate infiltration and edema tissue located around the tumor.

Results

With our kinetic approach, the volumes of tumor tissue were larger than the tissues identified by the standard FET-PET and MRI T1, while they were smaller than those determined with MRI T2/FLAIR.

Conclusion

Our results revealed the presence of suspected tumor voxels not identified by the standard PET approach.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Tumor Volume Standardize Uptake Value Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data Neighbor Voxels 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Prof. J. Woodley for help with the English language. The authors thank the two reviewers for their constructive suggestions, which greatly improved the quality of the article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Peggy Gandia, Cyril Jaudet, Hendrik Everaert, Johannes Heemskerk, Anne Marie Vanbinst, Johan de Mey, Johnny Duerinck, Bart Neyns, Mark De Ridder, Etienne Chatelut, and Didier Concordet declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Chung C, Metser U, Menard C. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography imaging for grading and molecular characterization of glioma. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2015;25(3):164–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langen KJ, Hamacher K, Weckesser M, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine: uptake mechanisms and clinical applications. Nucl Med Biol. 2006;33(3):287–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miyagawa T, Oku T, Uehara H, et al. “Facilitated” amino acid transport is upregulated in brain tumors. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998;18(5):500–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolcaen J, Descamps B, Deblaere K, et al. F-18-fluoromethylcholine (FCho), F-18-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), and F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for the discrimination between high-grade glioma and radiation necrosis in rats: a PET study. Nucl Med Biol. 2015;42(1):38–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunkl V, Cleff C, Stoffels G, et al. The usefulness of dynamic O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET in the clinical evaluation of brain tumors in children and adolescents. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):88–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galldiks N, Dunkl V, Stoffels G, et al. Diagnosis of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-[F-18]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(5):685–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galldiks N, Langen KJ, Holy R, et al. Assessment of treatment response in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(7):1048–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gempt J, Bette S, Ryang YM, et al. 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine positron emission tomography for grading and estimation of prognosis in patients with intracranial gliomas. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:955–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sweeney R, Polat B, Samnick S, et al. O-(2-[18 F]fluoroethyl)-l -tyrosine uptake is an independent prognostic determinant in patients with glioma referred for radiation therapy. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;28(2):154–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jansen NL, Graute V, Armbruster L, et al. MRI-suspected low-grade glioma: is there a need to perform dynamic FET PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(6):1021–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Popperl G, Kreth FW, Herms J, 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(3):393–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Popperl G, Kreth FW, Mehrkens JH, 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(12):1933–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lohmann P, Herzog H, Kops ER, et al. Dual-time-point O-(2-[18F] fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET for grading of cerebral gliomas. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(10):3017–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thon N, Kunz M, Lemke L, et al. Dynamic F-18-FET PET in suspected WHO grade II gliomas defines distinct biological subgroups with different clinical courses. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(9):2132–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gandia P, Jaudet C, Chatelut E, Concordet D. Population pharmacokinetics of tracers: a new tool for medical imaging? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s40262-016-0437-9
  16. 16.
    Galldiks N, Stoffels G, Ruge MI, et al. Role of O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET as a diagnostic tool for detection of malignant progression in patients with low-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(12):2046–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pauleit D, Floeth F, Hamacher K, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET combined with MRI improves the diagnostic assessment of cerebral gliomas. Brain. 2005;128(Pt 3):678–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egger J, Kapur T, Fedorov A, et al. GBM volumetry using the 3D Slicer medical image computing platform. Sci Rep. 2013;3:1364.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wester HJ, Herz M, Weber W, et al. Synthesis and radiopharmacology of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine for tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(1):205–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Besag J. Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 1974;36(2):192–236.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stanford DC, Raftery AE. Approximate Bayes factors for image segmentation: the pseudolikelihood information criterion (PLIC). IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2002;24(11):1517–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dice LR. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology. 1945;26(3):297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Luca A, Termini S. A definition of non-probabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory. Inf Control. 1972;20:301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Janssen MH, Aerts HJ, Ollers MC, et al. Tumor delineation based on time-activity curve differences assessed with dynamic fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in rectal cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(2):456–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hatt M, Roux C, Visvikis D. 3d fuzzy adaptive unsupervised Bayesian segmentation for volume determination in PET. In: 4th IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: from macro to nano, vol. 1–3, 2007. p. 328–31.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD. Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1983;3(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peggy Gandia
    • 1
    • 8
  • Cyril Jaudet
    • 2
  • Hendrik Everaert
    • 2
  • Johannes Heemskerk
    • 2
  • Anne Marie Vanbinst
    • 3
  • Johan de Mey
    • 3
  • Johnny Duerinck
    • 4
  • Bart Neyns
    • 5
  • Mark de Ridder
    • 6
  • Etienne Chatelut
    • 1
    • 7
  • Didier Concordet
    • 8
  1. 1.CRCT, Université de Toulouse, Inserm, UPSToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Department of NeurosurgeryUZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Medical OncologyUZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Department of RadiotherapyUZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  7. 7.Institut Claudius RegaudToulouseFrance
  8. 8.Toxalim, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVTToulouse Cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations