Advertisement

The mean striatal 18F-DOPA uptake is not a reliable cut-off threshold for biological tumour volume definition of glioma

  • Francesco CiconeEmail author
  • Luciano Carideo
  • Giuseppe Minniti
  • Francesco Scopinaro
Letter to the Editor
  • 183 Downloads

Dear Editor,

We were extremely interested in the procedural guidelines for imaging gliomas with amino acid and fluorodeoxyglocose PET, published jointly by the EANM/RANO/EANO and SNMMI in your journal [1]. Imaging with radiolabelled PET probes, particularly amino acids, has become an essential part of primary brain tumour assessment [2], and these joint guidelines represent an important step towards international standardization of the acquisition and interpretation criteria of this technique.

There is, however, one ambiguous point in these guidelines that needs to be addressed. This point regards the quantification of tumour extent with 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-l-phenylalanine (FDOPA). In the paragraph “Cut-off thresholds for definition of biological tumour volume”, a standardized uptake value (SUV) higher than the mean SUV of the striatum is recommended as the cut-off value for definition of tumour volume on FDOPA PET, although it is acknowledged that this cut-off value lacks...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

This article does not describe any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Law I, Albert NL, Arbizu J, Boellaard R, Drzezga A, Galldiks N, et al. Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [18F]FDG: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4207-9.
  2. 2.
    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 Oncol. 2016;18:1199–208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwarzenberg J, Czernin J, Cloughesy TF, Ellingson BM, Pope WB, Grogan T, et al. Treatment response evaluation using 18F-FDOPA PET in patients with recurrent malignant glioma on bevacizumab therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:3550–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicone F, Carideo L, Scaringi C, Arcella A, Giangaspero F, Scopinaro F, et al. 18F-DOPA uptake does not correlate with IDH mutation status and 1p/19q co-deletion in glioma. Ann Nucl Med. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-01328-3.
  5. 5.
    Chen W, Silverman DH, Delaloye S, Czernin J, Kamdar N, Pope W, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:904–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pafundi DH, Laack NN, Youland RS, Parney IF, Lowe VJ, Giannini C, et al. Biopsy validation of 18F-DOPA PET and biodistribution in gliomas for neurosurgical planning and radiotherapy target delineation: results of a prospective pilot study. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15:1058–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Youland RS, Pafundi DH, Brinkmann DH, Lowe VJ, Morris JM, Kemp BJ, et al. Prospective trial evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine (18F-DOPA) PET and MRI in patients with recurrent gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2018;137:583–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, Khangembam BC, Bandopadhyaya GP, Kumar R, 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;40:1025–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herrmann K, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, Lai A, Pomykala KL, Benz MR, et al. Comparison of visual and semiquantitative analysis of 18F-FDOPA-PET/CT for recurrence detection in glioblastoma patients. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:603–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rossi Espagnet MC, Romano A, Mancuso V, Cicone F, Napolitano A, Scaringi C, et al. Multiparametric evaluation of low grade gliomas at follow-up: comparison between diffusion and perfusion MR with (18)F-FDOPA PET. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20160476.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verger A, Metellus P, Sala Q, Colin C, Bialecki E, Taieb D, et al. IDH mutation is paradoxically associated with higher 18F-FDOPA PET uptake in diffuse grade II and grade III gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1306–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morana G, Piccardo A, Tortora D, Puntoni M, Severino M, Nozza P, et al. Grading and outcome prediction of pediatric diffuse astrocytic tumors with diffusion and arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI in comparison with 18F-DOPA PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:2084–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carideo L, Minniti G, Mamede M, Scaringi C, Russo I, Scopinaro F, et al. 18F-DOPA uptake parameters in glioma: effects of patients’ characteristics and prior treatment history. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stegmayr C, Stoffels G, Kops ER, Lohmann P, Galldiks N, Shah NJ, et al. Influence of dexamethasone on O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine uptake in the human brain and quantification of tumor uptake. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1221-z.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and PsychologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.Radiation Oncology Unit, UPMC Hillman Cancer CenterSan Pietro Hospital FBFRomeItaly
  4. 4.IRCCS NeuromedPozzilliItaly

Personalised recommendations