IDH mutation is paradoxically associated with higher 18F-FDOPA PET uptake in diffuse grade II and grade III gliomas

  • A. Verger
  • Ph. Metellus
  • Q. Sala
  • C. Colin
  • E. Bialecki
  • D. Taieb
  • O. Chinot
  • D. Figarella-Branger
  • E. Guedj
Original Article



The World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System has recently been updated by the integration of diagnostic and prognostic molecular parameters, giving pivotal attention to IDH mutation as a favourable factor. Amino acid PET is increasingly used in the management of gliomas, but its prognostic value is a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between IDH mutation and 18F-FDOPA uptake on PET in newly diagnosed gliomas.


A total of 43 patients, presenting with diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial grade II and III gliomas, reclassified according to the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the CNS, were retrospectively included. They had all undergone 18F-FDOPA PET at an initial stage before surgery and histological diagnosis. 18F-FDOPA uptake values were compared between patients with and without IDH mutation in terms of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ratios between tumour and normal contralateral brain (T/N), and between tumour and striatum (T/S).


Patients with IDH mutation showed higher 18F-FDOPA T/N SUVmax ratios (1.6 vs. 1.2) and T/S SUVmax ratios (0.9 vs. 0.6) than patients without IDH mutation (p < 0.05).


This study showed paradoxically higher 18F-FDOPA uptake in diffuse grade II and III gliomas with IDH mutation. Despite evident interest in the management of gliomas, and especially in relation to posttherapy evaluation, our findings raise the question of the prognostic value of 18F-FDOPA uptake on PET uptake in this group of patients. This may be related to differences in amino acid integration, metabolism, or cell differentiation.


18F-FDOPA PET IDH mutation Gliomas Prognosis 


Compliance with ethical standards


This work was carried out in the framework of DHU-Imaging with the support of the A*MIDEX project (no. ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02) funded by the “Investissements d’Avenir” French Government programme, managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR), and an INCa-DGOS-Inserm 6038 grant (SIRIC Marseille Glioma program).

Conflicts of interest


Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Tumour specimens were retrieved from the AP-HM tissue bank AC 2013-1786.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    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;18:1199–1208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 (Berl). 2016;131:803–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colavolpe C, Metellus P, Mancini J, Barrie M, Béquet-Boucard C, Figarella-Branger D, et al. Independent prognostic value of pre-treatment 18-FDG-PET in high-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2012;107:527–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janvier L, Olivier P, Blonski M, Morel O, Vignaud J-M, Karcher G, et al. Correlation of SUV-derived indices with tumoral aggressiveness of gliomas in static 18F-FDOPA PET: use in clinical practice. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e429–e435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juhász C, Dwivedi S, Kamson DO, Michelhaugh SK, Mittal S. Comparison of amino acid positron emission tomographic radiotracers for molecular imaging of primary and metastatic brain tumors. Mol Imaging. 2014. doi: 10.2310/7290.2014.00015.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;35:5117–5122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng W, Ren X, Zhang C, Cai J, Han S, Wu A. Gene expression profiling stratifies IDH1-mutant glioma with distinct prognoses. Mol Neurobiol. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s12035-016-0150-6.
  9. 9.
    Zeng A, Hu Q, Liu Y, Wang Z, Cui X, Li R, et al. IDH1/2 mutation status combined with Ki-67 labeling index defines distinct prognostic groups in glioma. Oncotarget. 2015;6:30232–30238.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK, Burger PC, Jouvet A, et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 2007;114:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen W, Silverman DHS, 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;47:904–911.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fueger BJ, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, Silverman DH, Geist CL, Walter MA, et al. Correlation of 6-18F-fluoro-L-dopa PET uptake with proliferation and tumor grade in newly diagnosed and recurrent gliomas. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1532–1538.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metellus P, Colin C, Taieb D, Guedj E, Nanni-Metellus I, de Paula AM, et al. IDH mutation status impact on in vivo hypoxia biomarkers expression: new insights from a clinical, nuclear imaging and immunohistochemical study in 33 glioma patients. J Neurooncol. 2011;105:591–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hines WG, Hines RJ. Increased power with modified forms of the Levene (Med) test for heterogeneity of variance. Biometrics. 2000;56:451–454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tabouret E, Nguyen AT, Dehais C, Carpentier C, Ducray F, Idbaih A, et al. Prognostic impact of the 2016 WHO classification of diffuse gliomas in the French POLA cohort. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 2016;132:625–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reitman ZJ, Jin G, Karoly ED, Spasojevic I, Yang J, Kinzler KW, et al. Profiling the effects of isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations on the cellular metabolome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:3270–3275.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grassian AR, Parker SJ, Davidson SM, Divakaruni AS, Green CR, Zhang X, et al. IDH1 mutations alter citric acid cycle metabolism and increase dependence on oxidative mitochondrial metabolism. Cancer Res. 2014;74:3317–3331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacob T, Grahek D, Younsi N, Kerrou K, Aide N, Montravers F, et al. Positron emission tomography with [(18)F]FDOPA and [(18)F]FDG in the imaging of small cell lung carcinoma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1266–1269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bette S, Gempt J, Delbridge C, Kirschke JS, Schlegel J, Foerster S, et al. Prognostic value of O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine-positron emission tomography imaging for histopathologic characteristics and progression-free survival in patients with low-grade glioma. World Neurosurg. 2016;89:230–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jansen NL, Suchorska B, Wenter V, Eigenbrod S, Schmid-Tannwald C, Zwergal A, et al. Dynamic 18F-FET PET in newly diagnosed astrocytic low-grade glioma identifies high-risk patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:198–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiestler B, Capper D, Holland-Letz T, Korshunov A, von Deimling A, Pfister SM, et al. ATRX loss refines the classification of anaplastic gliomas and identifies a subgroup of IDH mutant astrocytic tumors with better prognosis. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 2013;126:443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Labussière M, Idbaih A, Wang X-W, Marie Y, Boisselier B, Falet C, et al. All the 1p19q codeleted gliomas are mutated on IDH1 or IDH2. Neurology. 2010;74:1886–1890.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Darcourt J, Schiazza A, Sapin N, Dufour M, Ouvrier MJ, Benisvy D, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET for the diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;58:355–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineAPHM, La Timone HospitalMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine & Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU NancyLorraine UniversityNancyFrance
  3. 3.IADI, INSERM, UMR 947Lorraine UniversityNancyFrance
  4. 4.Department of NeurosurgeryCentre Hospitalier Privé ClairvalMarseilleFrance
  5. 5.INSERM, UMR 911Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  6. 6.CERIMEDAix-Marseille University MarseilleFrance
  7. 7.Department of Neuro-OncologyAPHM, La Timone HospitalMarseilleFrance
  8. 8.Department of AnatomopathologyAPHM, La Timone HospitalMarseilleFrance
  9. 9.Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone, CNRS, UMR 7289Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  10. 10.Service Central de Biophysique et Médecine NucléaireHôpital de la TimoneMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations