Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ledezma CJ, Chen W, Sai V, Freitas B, Cloughesy T, Czernin J, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/MRI fusion in patients with primary/recurrent gliomas: initial experience. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:242–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Martinez AJ. Unreliability of contemporary neurodiagnostic imaging in evaluating suspected adult supratentorial (low-grade) astrocytoma. J Neurosurg. 1993;79:533–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jansen EP, Dewit LG, van Herk M, Bartelink H. Target volumes in radiotherapy for high-grade malignant glioma of the brain. Radiotherapy and oncology. J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2000;56:151–6.

    Article  CAS  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan GG, Deng QL, Wu ZH, Guo Q. Usefulness of diffusion/perfusion-weighted MRI in patients with non-enhancing supratentorial brain gliomas: a valuable tool to predict tumour grading? Br J Radiol. 2006;79:652–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Calabria F, Chiaravalloti A, Di Pietro B, Grasso C, Schillaci O. Molecular imaging of brain tumors with 18F-DOPA PET and PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:563–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e328351d566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lapointe S, Perry A, Butowski NA. Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet (London, England). 2018;392:432–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30990-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:803–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen JW, Zhou CF, Lin ZX. The influence of different classification standards of age groups on prognosis in high-grade hemispheric glioma patients. J Neurol Sci. 2015;356:148–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.

    Article  CAS  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chiaravalloti A, Fiorentini A, Villani V, Carapella C, Pace A, Di Pietro B, et al. Factors affecting (1)(8)F FDOPA standardized uptake value in patients with primary brain tumors after treatment. Nucl Med Biol. 2015;42:355–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2015.01.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rose S, Fay M, Thomas P, Bourgeat P, Dowson N, Salvado O, et al. Correlation of MRI-derived apparent diffusion coefficients in newly diagnosed gliomas with [18F]-fluoro-l-dopa PET: what are we really measuring with minimum ADC? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:758–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.26.3541.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, Gupta DK, Khangembam BC, Ballal S, et al. Can (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT predict survival in patients with suspected recurrent glioma? A prospective study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:219–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Soffietti R, Abacioglu U, Baumert B, Combs SE, Kinhult S, Kros JM, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases from solid tumors: guidelines from the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO). Neuro-oncology. 2017;19:162–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310–20. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.4923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schiepers C, Chen W, Cloughesy T, Dahlbom M, Huang SC. 18F-FDOPA kinetics in brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1651–61. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.039321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nioche C, Soret M, Gontier E, Lahutte M, Dutertre G, Dulou R, et al. Evaluation of quantitative criteria for glioma grading with static and dynamic 18F-FDopa PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:81–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318279fd5a.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy ES, Leyrer CM, Parsons M, Suh JH, Chao ST, Yu JS, et al. Risk factors for malignant transformation of low-grade glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;100:965–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.12.258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith JS, Alderete B, Minn Y, Borell TJ, Perry A, Mohapatra G, et al. Localization of common deletion regions on 1p and 19q in human gliomas and their association with histological subtype. Oncogene. 1999;18:4144–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1202759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Tiziana Martino (IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, IT) for data collection.

Funding

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University “Tor Vergata”, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Agostino Chiaravalloti, Andrea Cimini & Orazio Schillaci

  2. IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, IS, Italy

    Agostino Chiaravalloti, Vincenzo Esposito, Eugenio Di Giorgio, Maddalena Zinzi & Orazio Schillaci

  3. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Francesco Ursini

  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, “Mariano Santo” Hospital, Cosenza, Italy

    Ferdinando Calabria

Authors
  1. Agostino Chiaravalloti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincenzo Esposito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Ursini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eugenio Di Giorgio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maddalena Zinzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ferdinando Calabria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrea Cimini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Orazio Schillaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agostino Chiaravalloti.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiaravalloti, A., Esposito, V., Ursini, F. et al. 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?. Ann Nucl Med 33, 471–480 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01355-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01355-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation