Karl-Josef Langen, Gabriele Stoffels, Christian P. Filss, Martin Kocher, Christoph Lerche, Michael Sabel, Marion Rapp, Hosai Noltemeier, Jan-Michael Werner, Garry Ceccon, Michael M. Wollring, Jurij Rosen, Joachim P. Steinbach, Elke Hattingen, Martin R. Weinzierl, Michael Stoffel, Hans Clusmann, N. Jon Shah, Felix M. Mottaghy, Norbert Galldiks, Philipp Lohmann
{"title":"Borderline Findings in O-(2-[18F]-Fluoroethyl)-l-Tyrosine PET of Patients with Suspected Glioma Relapse: Role in Clinical Practice","authors":"Karl-Josef Langen, Gabriele Stoffels, Christian P. Filss, Martin Kocher, Christoph Lerche, Michael Sabel, Marion Rapp, Hosai Noltemeier, Jan-Michael Werner, Garry Ceccon, Michael M. Wollring, Jurij Rosen, Joachim P. Steinbach, Elke Hattingen, Martin R. Weinzierl, Michael Stoffel, Hans Clusmann, N. Jon Shah, Felix M. Mottaghy, Norbert Galldiks, Philipp Lohmann","doi":"10.2967/jnumed.124.268768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>One of the most common clinical indications for amino acid PET using the tracer <em>O</em>-(2-[<sup>18</sup>F]-fluoroethyl)-<span>l</span>-tyrosine (<sup>18</sup>F-FET) is the differentiation of tumor relapse from treatment-related changes in patients with gliomas. A subset of patients may present with an uptake of <sup>18</sup>F-FET close to recommended threshold values. The goal of this study was to investigate the frequency of borderline cases and the role of quantitative <sup>18</sup>F-FET PET parameters in this situation. <strong>Methods:</strong> We retrospectively identified 439 patients with pretreated gliomas who underwent <sup>18</sup>F-FET PET for suspected tumor relapse and in whom the final diagnoses were confirmed by histopathology (<em>n</em> = 175) or clinical course (<em>n</em> = 264). Two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, masked to the final diagnoses, evaluated visually the PET scans by consensus. The findings were classified into 3 categories: clearly positive findings, borderline findings, or clearly negative findings. The diagnostic performance of established <sup>18</sup>F-FET PET parameters (i.e., tumor-to-brain ratio [TBR], time-to-peak ratio, slope, intercept) was evaluated separately for these 3 groups using receiver operating characteristics analyses. <strong>Results:</strong> In the visual analysis, <sup>18</sup>F-FET uptake was classified as clearly negative in 67 patients (15%), clearly positive in 234 patients (53%), and borderline in 136 patients (31%), with averaged mean TBR values of 1.5, 2.3, and 1.9, respectively. Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed a high accuracy for TBR values in patients rated as clearly positive or negative in visual rating (area under curve [AUC], 0.84–0.86), whereas the diagnostic performance of TBR values in borderline cases according to visual analysis was significantly lower (AUC, <0.60). Using TBR values ± 10% above or below the cutoff values increased the AUC by approximately 10% (AUC, 0.82–0.84). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> A considerable number of patients may present with borderline findings in <sup>18</sup>F-FET PET. In these patients, quantitative parameters should be used with caution for decision-making. The use of TBR values above or below the range of the cutoff values ±10% may increase the reliability of quantitative parameters to differentiate between tumor relapse and treatment-related changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22820,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.268768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
One of the most common clinical indications for amino acid PET using the tracer O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) is the differentiation of tumor relapse from treatment-related changes in patients with gliomas. A subset of patients may present with an uptake of 18F-FET close to recommended threshold values. The goal of this study was to investigate the frequency of borderline cases and the role of quantitative 18F-FET PET parameters in this situation. Methods: We retrospectively identified 439 patients with pretreated gliomas who underwent 18F-FET PET for suspected tumor relapse and in whom the final diagnoses were confirmed by histopathology (n = 175) or clinical course (n = 264). Two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, masked to the final diagnoses, evaluated visually the PET scans by consensus. The findings were classified into 3 categories: clearly positive findings, borderline findings, or clearly negative findings. The diagnostic performance of established 18F-FET PET parameters (i.e., tumor-to-brain ratio [TBR], time-to-peak ratio, slope, intercept) was evaluated separately for these 3 groups using receiver operating characteristics analyses. Results: In the visual analysis, 18F-FET uptake was classified as clearly negative in 67 patients (15%), clearly positive in 234 patients (53%), and borderline in 136 patients (31%), with averaged mean TBR values of 1.5, 2.3, and 1.9, respectively. Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed a high accuracy for TBR values in patients rated as clearly positive or negative in visual rating (area under curve [AUC], 0.84–0.86), whereas the diagnostic performance of TBR values in borderline cases according to visual analysis was significantly lower (AUC, <0.60). Using TBR values ± 10% above or below the cutoff values increased the AUC by approximately 10% (AUC, 0.82–0.84). Conclusion: A considerable number of patients may present with borderline findings in 18F-FET PET. In these patients, quantitative parameters should be used with caution for decision-making. The use of TBR values above or below the range of the cutoff values ±10% may increase the reliability of quantitative parameters to differentiate between tumor relapse and treatment-related changes.