Performance of 18F-FET versus 18F-FDG-PET for the diagnosis and grading of brain tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 426-434

  Dunet, Vincent ^a   Pomoni, Anastasia ^a   Hottinger, Andreas ^a   Nicod Lalonde, Marie ^a   Prior, John O ^a  

^a LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

18F fluoro deoxy glucose; 18F fluoro ethyl tyrosine; brain tumor; meta analysis; PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROETHYLTYROSINE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ASTROCYTOMA; BRAIN TUMOR; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLIOBLASTOMA; GLIOMA; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NONHUMAN; OLIGODENDROGLIOMA; PILOCYTIC ASTROCYTOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; META ANALYSIS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GLIOMA; HUMANS; NEOPLASM GRADING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

EID: 84960128935     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nov148     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007-2011. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(Suppl 4): iv1-iv63.
2. Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2007;114(2):97-109.
3. la Fougere C, Suchorska B, Bartenstein P, et al. Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: opportunities and limitations. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(8):806-819.
4. Delbeke D, Meyerowitz C, Lapidus RL, et al. Optimal cutoff levels of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the differentiation of low-grade from high-grade brain tumors with PET. Radiology. 1995;195(1): 47-52.
5. Salber D, Stoffels G, Pauleit D, 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(12): 2056-2062.
6. Pauleit D, Floeth F, Herzog H, et al. Whole-body distribution and dosimetry of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(4):519-524.
7. 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):678-687.
8. Floeth FW, Pauleit D, Wittsack HJ, et al. Multimodal metabolic imaging of cerebral gliomas: positron emission tomography with [18F]fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(2):318-327.
9. Dunet V, Rossier C, Buck A, et al. Performance of 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine (18F-FET) PET for the differential diagnosis of primary brain tumor: A systematic review and metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(2):207-214.
10. Weckesser M, Langen KJ, Rickert CH, 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(4):422-429.
11. Weber DC, Zilli T, Buchegger F, et al. [(18)F]Fluoroethyltyrosinepositron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for highgrade glioma. Radiat Oncol. 2008;3:44.
12. Spaeth N, Wyss MT, Weber B, et al. Uptake of 18F-fluorocholine, 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine, and 18F-FDG in acute cerebral radiation injury in the rat: implications for separation of radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence. J Nucl Med. 2004; 45(11):1931-1938.
13. Bolcaen J, Descamps B, Deblaere K, et al. (18)F-fluoromethylcholine (FCho), (18)F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), and (18)F-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.
14. 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):1933-1942.
15. Rapp M, Heinzel A, Galldiks N, et al. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FET PET in newly diagnosed cerebral lesions suggestive of glioma. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(2):229-235.
16. Piroth MD, Pinkawa M, Holy R, et al. Prognostic value of early [(18)f]fluoroethyltyrosine positron emission tomography after radiochemotherapy in glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(1):176-184.
17. Floeth FW, Pauleit D, Sabel M, et al. Prognostic value of O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET and MRI in low-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(4):519-527.
18. Floeth FW, Sabel M, Stoffels G, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine PET and MRI in small nonspecific incidental brain lesions. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(5):730-737.
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):205-212.
20. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Radiology. 2003;226(1):24-28.
21. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.
22. Floeth FW, Pauleit D, Sabel M, et al. 18F-FET PET differentiation of ring-enhancing brain lesions. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(5): 776-782.
23. Pauleit D, Stoffels G, Bachofner A, et al. Comparison of (18)F-FET and (18)F-FDG PET in brain tumors. Nucl Med Biol. 2009;36(7): 779-787.
24. Lau EW, Drummond KJ, Ware RE, et al. Comparative PET study using F-18 FET and F-18 FDG for the evaluation of patients with suspected brain tumour. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(1):43-49.
25. Plotkin M, Blechschmidt C, Auf G, 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(10):2496-2502.
26. Pichler R, Dunzinger A,Wurm G, 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(8):1521-1528.
27. Popperl G, Gotz C, Rachinger W, et al. Value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(11): 1464-1470.
28. 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.
29. Galldiks N, Langen KJ, Holy R, et al. Assessment of treatment response in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-18Ffluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(7):1048-1057.
30. ChenW, Silverman DH, Delaloye S, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):904-911.
31. Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT for detection of recurrence in patients with glioma: prospective comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):1025-1035.
32. Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Kimura N, et al. 11C-acetate PET in the evaluation of brain glioma: comparison with 11C-methionine and 18F-FDG-PET. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;10(5):281-287.
33. Zhao C, Zhang Y, Wang J. A meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG and (11)C-methionine PET for differentiating brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(6): 1058-1065.
34. Calcagni ML, Galli G, Giordano A, et al. Dynamic O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (F-18 FET) PET for glioma grading: assessment of individual probability of malignancy. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36(10):841-847.
35. Manabe O, Hattori N, Yamaguchi S, et al. Oligodendroglial component complicates the prediction of tumour grading with metabolic imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(6): 896-904.
36. Mertens K, Acou M, Van Hauwe J, et al. Validation of 18F-FDG PET at conventional and delayed intervals for the discrimination of high-grade from low-grade gliomas: A stereotactic PET and MRI study. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(7):495-500.
37. Singhal T, Narayanan TK, Jacobs MP, et al. 11C-methionine PET for grading and prognostication in gliomas: A comparison study with 18F-FDG PETand contrast enhancement on MRI. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(11):1709-1715.
38. Yoon JH, Kim JH, Kang WJ, et al. Grading of cerebral glioma with multiparametric MR imaging and 18F-FDG-PET: concordance and accuracy. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(2):380-389.
39. Kratochwil C, Combs SE, Leotta K, et al. Intra-individual comparison of (1)(8)F-FET and (1)(8)F-DOPA in PET imaging of recurrent brain tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(3):434-440.
40. Moulin-Romsee G, D'Hondt E, de Groot T, et al. Non-invasive grading of brain tumours using dynamic amino acid PET imaging: does it work for 11C-methionine? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(12):2082-2087.
41. Dunet V, Maeder P, Nicod-Lalonde M, et al. Combination of MRI and dynamic FET PET for initial glioma grading. Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53(4):155-161.
42. Niyazi M, Geisler J, Siefert A, et al. FET-PET for malignant glioma treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2011;99(1):44-48.
43. Weber DC, Casanova N, Zilli T, et al. Recurrence pattern after [(18)F]fluoroethyltyrosine-positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for high-grade glioma: A prospective study. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93(3):586-592.
44. Popperl G, Gotz C, Rachinger W, 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(7): 792-800.
45. Popperl G, Goldbrunner R, Gildehaus FJ, 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(9): 1018-1025.
46. Galldiks N, Rapp M, Stoffels G, et al. Response assessment of bevacizumab in patients with recurrent malignant glioma using [18F]fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(1):22-33.
47. Thon N, Kunz M, Lemke L, et al. Dynamic 18F-FET PET in suspected WHO grade II gliomas defines distinct biological subgroups with different clinical courses. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(9):2132-2145.
48. Jansen NL, Suchorska B, Wenter V, et al. Dynamic 18F-FET PET in newly diagnosed astrocytic low-grade glioma identifies high-risk patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(2):198-203.
49. 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(5):955-962.
50. Jansen NL, Suchorska B, Wenter V, et al. Prognostic significance of dynamic 18F-FET PET in newly diagnosed astrocytic high-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):9-15.
51. Piroth MD, Holy R, Pinkawa M, et al. Prognostic impact of postoperative, pre-irradiation (18)F-fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine uptake in glioblastoma patients treated with radiochemotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2011;99(2):218-224.
52. Suchorska B, Jansen NL, Linn J, et al. Biological tumor volume in 18FET-PET before radiochemotherapy correlates with survival in GBM. Neurology. 2015;84(7):710-719.
53. Niyazi M, Jansen N, Ganswindt U, et al. Re-irradiation in recurrent malignant glioma: prognostic value of [18F]FET-PET. J Neurooncol. 2012;110(3):389-395.
54. Piroth MD, Liebenstund S, Galldiks N, et al. Monitoring of radiochemotherapy in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-(1)(8)Fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography: is dynamic imaging helpful? Mol Imaging. 2013;12(6):388-395.
55. Colavolpe C, Chinot O, Metellus P, et al. FDG-PET predicts survival in recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(5):649-657.
56. Colavolpe C, Metellus P, Mancini J, et al. Independent prognostic value of pre-treatment 18-FDG-PET in high-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2012;107(3):527-535.
57. Tralins KS, Douglas JG, Stelzer KJ, et al. Volumetric analysis of 18F-FDG PET in glioblastoma multiforme: prognostic information and possible role in definition of target volumes in radiation dose escalation. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(12):1667-1673.
58. Charnley N, West CM, Barnett CM, et al. Early change in glucose metabolic rate measured using FDG-PET in patients with high-grade glioma predicts response to temozolomide but not temozolomide plus radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(2):331-338.
59. Kim S, Chung JK, Im SH, et al. 11C-methionine PET as a prognostic marker in patients with glioma: comparison with 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(1):52-59.
60. Filss CP, Galldiks N, Stoffels G, et al. Comparison of 18F-FET PETand perfusion-weighted MR imaging: A PET/MR imaging hybrid study in patients with brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(4):540-545.
61. Gempt J, Soehngen E, Forster S, et al. Multimodal imaging in cerebral gliomas and its neuropathological correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(5):829-834.
62. Nowosielski M, DiFranco MD, Putzer D, et al. An intra-individual comparison of MRI, [18F]-FET and [18F]-FLT PET in patients with high-grade gliomas. PloS One. 2014;9(4):e95830.
63. Cicone F, Filss CP, Minniti G, 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(6):905-915.
64. Heinzel A, Stock S, Langen KJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of FET PET-guided target selection for the diagnosis of gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(7):1089-1096.