Rethinking dynamics: static amino acid PET parameters vs. dynamic amino acid PET parameters for the detection of tumor progression in patients with post-treatment glioma.

IF 1.4
Dylan Henssen, Michael Rullmann, Andreas Schildan, Stephan Striepe, Matti Schürer, Cordula Scherlach, Katja Jähne, Ruth Stassart, Osama Sabri, Clemens Seidel, Swen Hesse
{"title":"Rethinking dynamics: static amino acid PET parameters vs. dynamic amino acid PET parameters for the detection of tumor progression in patients with post-treatment glioma.","authors":"Dylan Henssen, Michael Rullmann, Andreas Schildan, Stephan Striepe, Matti Schürer, Cordula Scherlach, Katja Jähne, Ruth Stassart, Osama Sabri, Clemens Seidel, Swen Hesse","doi":"10.3389/fnume.2026.1762984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It remains unclear whether dynamic amino-acid (AA) positron-emission tomography (PET) has additional diagnostic value over static AA-PET to distinguish tumor progression (TP) from treatment-related abnormalities (TRA) in patients with post-treatment glioma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective study of patients with glioma with suspected TP who underwent dynamic AA-PET imaging. The final diagnoses were based on histopathology and/or clinical-radiological follow-up. The static PET parameters included the mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratio (TBR<sub>max</sub> and TBR<sub>mean</sub>, respectively) and the dynamic PET parameters included time to peak (TTP) and area under the time activity curve (AUTAC). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 33 patients with adult diffuse glioma (17 females: mean age: 55.7 ± 12.2 years) were included [13 [S-methyl-<sup>11</sup>C]methionine ([<sup>11</sup>C]MET) and 20 O-(2-[<sup>18</sup>F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (<sup>1</sup>⁸F]FET) PET examinations]. The static parameters (TBR<sub>mean</sub> and TBR<sub>max</sub>) were significantly different between the TP and TRA groups when using [<sup>11</sup>C]MET (<i>p</i> = 0.019 and <i>p</i> = 0.013, respectively), resulting in very-good-to-excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUROC values of 0.85 and 0.93, respectively). The TBR<sub>mean</sub> values derived from [<sup>18</sup>F]FET PET data were not significantly different between the TP and TRA groups (<i>p</i> = 0.066). However, the [<sup>18</sup>F]FET PET data-derived TBR<sub>max</sub> values were significantly higher in the individuals with TP (<i>p</i> = 0.005), indicating very good diagnostic accuracy (AUROC = 0.84). The dynamic PET parameters (time to peak and area under the time activity curve) were not significantly different between the TP and TRA groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests that dynamic and static AA-PET parameters have similar diagnostic capacities to distinguish TP from TRA. While static AA-PET parameters may suffice for clinical decision-making, this study did not formally assess the incremental value of using dynamic metrics in addition to static measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":73095,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)","volume":"6 ","pages":"1762984"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12957138/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnume.2026.1762984","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It remains unclear whether dynamic amino-acid (AA) positron-emission tomography (PET) has additional diagnostic value over static AA-PET to distinguish tumor progression (TP) from treatment-related abnormalities (TRA) in patients with post-treatment glioma.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients with glioma with suspected TP who underwent dynamic AA-PET imaging. The final diagnoses were based on histopathology and/or clinical-radiological follow-up. The static PET parameters included the mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratio (TBRmax and TBRmean, respectively) and the dynamic PET parameters included time to peak (TTP) and area under the time activity curve (AUTAC). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results: In total, 33 patients with adult diffuse glioma (17 females: mean age: 55.7 ± 12.2 years) were included [13 [S-methyl-11C]methionine ([11C]MET) and 20 O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (1⁸F]FET) PET examinations]. The static parameters (TBRmean and TBRmax) were significantly different between the TP and TRA groups when using [11C]MET (p = 0.019 and p = 0.013, respectively), resulting in very-good-to-excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUROC values of 0.85 and 0.93, respectively). The TBRmean values derived from [18F]FET PET data were not significantly different between the TP and TRA groups (p = 0.066). However, the [18F]FET PET data-derived TBRmax values were significantly higher in the individuals with TP (p = 0.005), indicating very good diagnostic accuracy (AUROC = 0.84). The dynamic PET parameters (time to peak and area under the time activity curve) were not significantly different between the TP and TRA groups.

Conclusion: This study suggests that dynamic and static AA-PET parameters have similar diagnostic capacities to distinguish TP from TRA. While static AA-PET parameters may suffice for clinical decision-making, this study did not formally assess the incremental value of using dynamic metrics in addition to static measures.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

重新思考动力学:静态氨基酸PET参数与动态氨基酸PET参数检测治疗后胶质瘤患者肿瘤进展的比较
背景:目前尚不清楚动态氨基酸(AA)正电子发射断层扫描(PET)是否比静态AA-PET在区分治疗后胶质瘤患者的肿瘤进展(TP)和治疗相关异常(TRA)方面具有额外的诊断价值。方法:对疑似TP的胶质瘤患者进行动态AA-PET成像进行回顾性研究。最终诊断基于组织病理学和/或临床放射学随访。静态PET参数包括平均和最大瘤脑比(TBRmax和TBRmean),动态PET参数包括到达峰值时间(TTP)和时间活性曲线下面积(AUTAC)。使用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)评估诊断准确性。结果:共纳入33例成人弥漫性胶质瘤患者(女性17例,平均年龄55.7±12.2岁)[13 [s -甲基-11C]蛋氨酸([11C]MET)和20例O-(2-[18F]氟乙基)- l-酪氨酸(1⁸F]FET) PET检查]。当使用[11C]MET时,TP组和TRA组的静态参数(TBRmean和TBRmax)有显著差异(p = 0.019和p = 0.013),导致非常好的到极好的诊断准确性(AUROC值分别为0.85和0.93)。从[18F]FET PET数据得出的TBRmean值在TP组和TRA组之间无显著差异(p = 0.066)。然而,[18F]FET PET数据衍生的TBRmax值在TP患者中显著更高(p = 0.005),表明非常好的诊断准确性(AUROC = 0.84)。TP组和TRA组的动态PET参数(到达峰值时间和时间活性曲线下面积)无显著差异。结论:本研究提示动态和静态AA-PET参数对TP和TRA的诊断能力相似。虽然静态AA-PET参数可能足以用于临床决策,但本研究并未正式评估除静态测量外使用动态指标的增量价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书