Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-04-2018 | Original Article

¹¹C–MET PET/MRI for detection of recurrent glioma

Authors: C. Deuschl, J. Kirchner, T. D. Poeppel, B. Schaarschmidt, S. Kebir, N. El Hindy, J. Hense, H. H. Quick, M. Glas, K. Herrmann, L. Umutlu, C. Moenninghoff, A. Radbruch, M. Forsting, M. Schlamann

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 4/2018

Abstract

Introduction

Radiological assessment of brain tumors is widely based on the Radiology Assessment of Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria that consider non-specific T1 and T2 weighted images. Limitation of the RANO criteria is that they do not include metabolic imaging techniques that have been reported to be helpful to differentiate treatment related changes from true tumor progression. In the current study, we assessed if the combined use of MRI and PET with hybrid ¹¹C–MET PET/MRI can improve diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic confidence of the readers to differentiate treatment related changes from true progression in recurrent glioma.

Methods

Fifty consecutive patients with histopathologically proven glioma were prospectively enrolled for a hybrid ¹¹C–MET PET/MRI to differentiate recurrent glioma from treatment induced changes. Sole MRI data were analyzed based on RANO. Sole PET data and in a third evaluation hybrid ¹¹C–MET-PET/MRI data were assessed for metabolic respectively metabolic and morphologic glioma recurrence. Diagnostic performance and diagnostic confidence of the reader were calculated for the different modalities, and the McNemar test and Mann-Whitney U Test were applied for statistical analysis.

Results

Hybrid ¹¹C–MET PET/MRI was successfully performed in all 50 patients. Glioma recurrence was diagnosed in 35 of the 50 patients (70%). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for MRI (86.11% and 71.43%), for ¹¹C–MET PET (96.77% and 73.68%), and for hybrid ¹¹C–MET-PET/MRI (97.14% and 93.33%). For diagnostic accuracy hybrid ¹¹C–MET-PET/MRI (96%) showed significantly higher values than MRI alone (82%), whereas no significant difference was found for 11C–MET PET (88%). Furthermore, by rating on a five-point Likert scale significantly higher scores were found for diagnostic confidence when comparing ¹¹C–MET PET/MRI (4.26 ± 0,777) to either PET alone (3.44 ± 0.705) or MRI alone (3.56 ± 0.733).

Conclusion

This feasibility study showed that hybrid PET/MRI might strengthen RANO classification by adding metabolic information to conventional MRI information. Future studies should evaluate the clinical utility of the combined use of ¹¹C–MET PET/MRI in larger patient cohorts.

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 : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541.CrossRef

Radbruch A, Lutz K, Wiestler B, Baumer P, Heiland S, Wick W, et al. Relevance of T2 signal changes in the assessment of progression of glioblastoma according to the response assessment in Neurooncology criteria. Neuro-Oncology. 2012;14:222–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nor200.CrossRefPubMed

Mullins ME, Barest GD, Schaefer PW, Hochberg FH, Gonzalez RG, Lev MH. Radiation necrosis versus glioma recurrence: conventional MR imaging clues to diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:1967–72.PubMed

Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, Van Horn A, Sloan AE. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neuro-Oncol. 2007;82:81–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-006-9241-y.CrossRef

Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, Zhang WT, Jain RK. Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5:634–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stuplich M, Hadizadeh DR, Kuchelmeister K, Scorzin J, Filss C, Langen KJ, et al. Late and prolonged pseudoprogression in glioblastoma after treatment with lomustine and temozolomide. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;30:e180–3. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.40.9565.CrossRef

Shah AH, Snelling B, Bregy A, Patel PR, Tememe D, Bhatia R, et al. Discriminating radiation necrosis from tumor progression in gliomas: a systematic review what is the best imaging modality? J Neuro-Oncol. 2013;112:141–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1059-9.CrossRef

Galldiks N, Dunkl V, Stoffels G, Hutterer M, Rapp M, Sabel M, et al. Diagnosis of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:685–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2959-4.CrossRefPubMed

Radbruch A, Fladt J, Kickingereder P, Wiestler B, Nowosielski M, Baumer P, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro-Oncology. 2015;17:151–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nou129.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:453–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70125-6.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Blasel S, Zagorcic A, Jurcoane A, Bahr O, Wagner M, Harter PN, et al. Perfusion MRI in the evaluation of suspected Glioblastoma recurrence. J Neuroimaging. 2016;26:116–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12247.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Seeger A, Braun C, Skardelly M, Paulsen F, Schittenhelm J, Ernemann U, et al. Comparison of three different MR perfusion techniques and MR spectroscopy for multiparametric assessment in distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from stable disease. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:1557–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kazda T, Bulik M, Pospisil P, Lakomy R, Smrcka M, Slampa P, et al. Advanced MRI increases the diagnostic accuracy of recurrent glioblastoma: single institution thresholds and validation of MR spectroscopy and diffusion weighted MR imaging. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;11:316–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Bobek-Billewicz B, Stasik-Pres G, Majchrzak H, Zarudzki L. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using perfusion, diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Folia Neuropathol. 2010;48:81–92.PubMed

15.

Hu LS, Baxter LC, Smith KA, Feuerstein BG, Karis JP, Eschbacher JM, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:552–8. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1377.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hamstra DA, Galban CJ, Meyer CR, Johnson TD, Sundgren PC, Tsien C, et al. Functional diffusion map as an early imaging biomarker for high-grade glioma: correlation with conventional radiologic response and overall survival. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3387–94. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2363.CrossRef

17.

Kebir S, Fimmers R, Galldiks N, Schafer N, Mack F, Schaub C, et al. Late Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma: diagnostic value of dynamic O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:2190–6. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1334.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Galldiks N, Langen KJ. Amino acid PET - an imaging option to identify treatment response, Posttherapeutic effects, and tumor recurrence? Front Neurol. 2016;7:120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00120.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Herholz K, Langen KJ, Schiepers C, Mountz JM. Brain tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 2012;42:356–70. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2012.06.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

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.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Langstrom B, Antoni G, Gullberg P, Halldin C, Malmborg P, Nagren K, et al. Synthesis of L- and D-[methyl-11C]methionine. J Nucl Med : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 1987;28:1037–40.

22.

Schober O, Duden C, Meyer GJ, Muller JA, Hundeshagen H. Non selective transport of [11C-methyl]-L-and D-methionine into a malignant glioma. Eur J Nucl Med. 1987;13:103–5.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Tsuyuguchi N, Takami T, Sunada I, Iwai Y, Yamanaka K, Tanaka K, et al. Methionine positron emission tomography for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery--in malignant glioma. Ann Nucl Med. 2004;18:291–6.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Li DL, Xu YK, Wang QS, Wu HB, Li HS. (1)(1)C-methionine and (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected primary and residual/recurrent gliomas. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012;125:91–6.

25.

Yamane T, Sakamoto S, Senda M. Clinical impact of (11)C-methionine PET on expected management of patients with brain neoplasm. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:685–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1302-y.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Galldiks N, Ullrich R, Schroeter M, Fink GR, Jacobs AH, Kracht LW. Volumetry of [(11)C]-methionine PET uptake and MRI contrast enhancement in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1219-5.CrossRefPubMed

27.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C, Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;52:1914–22. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.092726.

29.

Quick HH. Integrated PET/MR. J Magnet Resonan imaging : JMRI. 2014;39:243–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24523.CrossRef

30.

Deuschl C, Goericke S, Grueneisen J, Sawicki LM, Goebel J, El Hindy N, et al. Simultaneous 11C-Methionine positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging of suspected primary brain Tumors. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0167596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167596.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Rapp M, Heinzel A, Galldiks N, Stoffels G, Felsberg J, Ewelt C, et al. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FET PET in newly diagnosed cerebral lesions suggestive of glioma. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;54:229–35. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.109603.

32.

Terakawa Y, Tsuyuguchi N, Iwai Y, Yamanaka K, Higashiyama S, Takami T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;49:694–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.048082.

33.

Tripathi M, Sharma R, Varshney R, Jaimini A, Jain J, Souza MM, et al. Comparison of F-18 FDG and C-11 methionine PET/CT for the evaluation of recurrent primary brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:158–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318238f51a.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Peca C, Pacelli R, Elefante A, Del Basso De Caro ML, Vergara P, Mariniello G, et al. Early clinical and neuroradiological worsening after radiotherapy and concomitant temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: tumour progression or radionecrosis? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009;111:331–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2008.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, Gasparetto EL, Sorensen AG. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology. 2011;32:1978–85. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2397.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kreth FW, Muacevic A, Medele R, Bise K, Meyer T, Reulen HJ. The risk of haemorrhage after image guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain tumours--a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2001;143:539–45. discussion 45-6CrossRef

37.

Enslow MS, Zollinger LV, Morton KA, Butterfield RI, Kadrmas DJ, Christian PE, et al. Comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine PET in differentiating radiation necrosis from recurrent glioma. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:854–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318262c76a.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Nozawa A, Rivandi AH, Kanematsu M, Hoshi H, Piccioni D, Kesari S, et al. Glucose-corrected standardized uptake value in the differentiation of high-grade glioma versus post-treatment changes. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:573–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000288.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Garibotto V, Heinzer S, Vulliemoz S, Guignard R, Wissmeyer M, Seeck M, et al. Clinical applications of hybrid PET/MRI in neuroimaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:e13–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182638ea6.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Grosu AL, Astner ST, Riedel E, Nieder C, Wiedenmann N, Heinemann F, et al. An interindividual comparison of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)- and L-[methyl-11C]methionine (MET)-PET in patients with brain gliomas and metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:1049–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.002.CrossRefPubMed

41.

D'Souza MM, Sharma R, Jaimini A, Panwar P, Saw S, Kaur P, et al. 11C-MET PET/CT and advanced MRI in the evaluation of tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39:791–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000000532.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Okamoto S, Shiga T, Hattori N, Kubo N, Takei T, Katoh N, et al. Semiquantitative analysis of C-11 methionine PET may distinguish brain tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis even in small lesions. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:213–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-010-0450-2.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Minamimoto R, Saginoya T, Kondo C, Tomura N, Ito K, Matsuo Y, et al. Differentiation of brain tumor recurrence from post-radiotherapy necrosis with 11C-Methionine PET: visual assessment versus quantitative assessment. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132515.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Takano K, Kinoshita M, Arita H, Okita Y, Chiba Y, Kagawa N, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of 11C-Methionine PET for nonenhancing Gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:44–50. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4460.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Singhal T, Narayanan TK, Jacobs MP, Bal C, Mantil JC. 11C-methionine PET for grading and prognostication in gliomas: a comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and contrast enhancement on MRI. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;53:1709–15. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.102533.

Title: 11C–MET PET/MRI for detection of recurrent glioma
Authors: C. Deuschl
J. Kirchner
T. D. Poeppel
B. Schaarschmidt
S. Kebir
N. El Hindy
J. Hense
H. H. Quick
M. Glas
K. Herrmann
L. Umutlu
C. Moenninghoff
A. Radbruch
M. Forsting
M. Schlamann
Publication date: 01-04-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3916-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

¹¹C–MET PET/MRI for detection of recurrent glioma

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

[68Ga]Pentixafor-PET/MRI for the detection of Chemokine receptor 4 expression in atherosclerotic plaques

Comparison of 18F–FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study

Prediction of functional recovery after primary PCI using the estimate of myocardial salvage in gated SPECT early after acute myocardial infarction

Preclinical evaluation of an 18F-trifluoroborate methionine derivative for glioma imaging

Low baseline and subsequent higher aortic abdominal aneurysm FDG uptake are associated with poor sac shrinkage post endovascular repair

Chun K. Kim and Katherine A. Zukotynski (editors): SPECT and SPECT/CT: a clinical guide