Report of first recurrent glioma patients examined with PET-MRI prior to re-irradiation.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 17 12 2017
accepted: 16 04 2019
entrez: 25 7 2019
pubmed: 25 7 2019
medline: 18 2 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The advantage of combined PET-MRI over sequential PET and MRI is the high spatial conformity and the absence of time delay between the examinations. The benefit of this technique for planning of re-irradiation (re-RT) treatment is unkown yet. Imaging data from a phase 1 trial of re-RT for recurrent glioma was analysed to assess whether planning target volumes and treatment margins in glioma re-RT can be adjusted by PET-MRI with rater independent PET based biological tumour volumes (BTVs). Combined PET-MRI with the tracer O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) prior to re-RT was performed in recurrent glioma patients in a phase I trial. GTVs including all regions suspicious of tumour on contrast enhanced MRI were delineated by three experienced radiation oncologists and included into MRI based consensus GTVs (MRGTVs). BTVs were semi-automatically delineated with a fixed threshold of 1.6 x background activity. Corresponding BTVs and MRGTVs were fused into union volume PET-MRGTVs. The Sørensen-Dice coefficient and the conformity index were used to assess the geometric overlap of the BTVs with the MRGTVs. A recurrence pattern analysis was performed based on the original planning target volumes (PTVs = GTV + 10 mm margin or 5 mm in one case) and the PET-MRGTVs with margins of 10, 8, 5 and 3 mm. Seven recurrent glioma patients, who received PET-MRI prior to re-RT, were included into the present planning study. At the time of re-RT, patients were in median 54 years old and had a median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 80. Median post-recurrence survival after the beginning of re-RT was 13 months. Concomitant bevacizumab therapy was applied in six patients and one patient received chemoradiation with temozolomide. Median GTV volumes of the three radiation oncologists were 35.0, 37.5 and 40.5 cubic centimeters (cc) and median MRGTV volume 41.8 cc. Median BTV volume was 36.6 cc and median PET-MRGTV volume 59.3 cc. The median Sørensen-Dice coefficient for the comparison between MRGTV and BTV was 0.61 and the median conformity index 0.44. Recurrence pattern analysis revealed two central, two in-field and one distant recurrence within both, the original PTV, as well as the PET-MRGTV with a reduced margin of 3 mm. PET-MRI provides radiation treatment planning imaging with high spatial and timely conformity for high-grade glioma patients treated with re-RT with potential advancements for target volume delineation. Prospective randomised trials are warranted to further investigate the treatment benefits of PET-MRI based re-RT planning.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The advantage of combined PET-MRI over sequential PET and MRI is the high spatial conformity and the absence of time delay between the examinations. The benefit of this technique for planning of re-irradiation (re-RT) treatment is unkown yet. Imaging data from a phase 1 trial of re-RT for recurrent glioma was analysed to assess whether planning target volumes and treatment margins in glioma re-RT can be adjusted by PET-MRI with rater independent PET based biological tumour volumes (BTVs).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Combined PET-MRI with the tracer O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) prior to re-RT was performed in recurrent glioma patients in a phase I trial. GTVs including all regions suspicious of tumour on contrast enhanced MRI were delineated by three experienced radiation oncologists and included into MRI based consensus GTVs (MRGTVs). BTVs were semi-automatically delineated with a fixed threshold of 1.6 x background activity. Corresponding BTVs and MRGTVs were fused into union volume PET-MRGTVs. The Sørensen-Dice coefficient and the conformity index were used to assess the geometric overlap of the BTVs with the MRGTVs. A recurrence pattern analysis was performed based on the original planning target volumes (PTVs = GTV + 10 mm margin or 5 mm in one case) and the PET-MRGTVs with margins of 10, 8, 5 and 3 mm.
RESULTS
Seven recurrent glioma patients, who received PET-MRI prior to re-RT, were included into the present planning study. At the time of re-RT, patients were in median 54 years old and had a median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 80. Median post-recurrence survival after the beginning of re-RT was 13 months. Concomitant bevacizumab therapy was applied in six patients and one patient received chemoradiation with temozolomide. Median GTV volumes of the three radiation oncologists were 35.0, 37.5 and 40.5 cubic centimeters (cc) and median MRGTV volume 41.8 cc. Median BTV volume was 36.6 cc and median PET-MRGTV volume 59.3 cc. The median Sørensen-Dice coefficient for the comparison between MRGTV and BTV was 0.61 and the median conformity index 0.44. Recurrence pattern analysis revealed two central, two in-field and one distant recurrence within both, the original PTV, as well as the PET-MRGTV with a reduced margin of 3 mm.
CONCLUSION
PET-MRI provides radiation treatment planning imaging with high spatial and timely conformity for high-grade glioma patients treated with re-RT with potential advancements for target volume delineation. Prospective randomised trials are warranted to further investigate the treatment benefits of PET-MRI based re-RT planning.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31339892
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216111
pii: PONE-D-17-41710
pmc: PMC6655559
doi:

Substances chimiques

(18F)fluoroethyltyrosine 1326R5J1IA
Bevacizumab 2S9ZZM9Q9V
Tyrosine 42HK56048U
Temozolomide YF1K15M17Y

Types de publication

Clinical Trial Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0216111

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Nucl Med. 2010 Mar;51(3):333-6
pubmed: 20150252
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Dec 21;9:299
pubmed: 25529015
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Oct;121(1):132-137
pubmed: 27622554
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jan;206(1):162-72
pubmed: 26491894
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Mar;122(3):380-386
pubmed: 28110959
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jul 02;10:137
pubmed: 26134973
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Apr;99(1):44-8
pubmed: 21458093
Strahlenther Onkol. 2016 Nov;192(11):770-779
pubmed: 27334276
BMC Cancer. 2016 Oct 5;16(1):769
pubmed: 27716184
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Apr;45(4):593-601
pubmed: 29282517
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jan;118(1):35-42
pubmed: 26777122
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140917
pubmed: 26468649
Neuro Oncol. 2016 Sep;18(9):1199-208
pubmed: 27106405
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Jan;98(1):1-14
pubmed: 21159396
EJNMMI Res. 2017 Dec;7(1):48
pubmed: 28560582
Strahlenther Onkol. 2015 Dec;191(12):945-52
pubmed: 26340939
Sci Rep. 2018 May 8;8(1):7201
pubmed: 29740097
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Aug 20;28(24):3838-43
pubmed: 20644085
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Feb 1;64(2):333-42
pubmed: 16414369
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 1;11(12):e0167596
pubmed: 27907162
J Nucl Med. 2016 Jul;57(7):993-5
pubmed: 27056615
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Mar 15;20(6):1635-42
pubmed: 11896114
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jun;39(6):1021-9
pubmed: 22491781
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Mar;44(3):373-381
pubmed: 27554774
Ann Oncol. 2014 Sep;25 Suppl 3:iii93-101
pubmed: 24782454
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Mar 1;85(3):636-42
pubmed: 22765876
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Oct 21;11(1):139
pubmed: 27769279
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Aug;15(9):e395-403
pubmed: 25079102
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 23;9(4):e95830
pubmed: 24759867
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Nov;17(11):1434-44
pubmed: 26130743
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Jun 24;11:87
pubmed: 27342976
J Neurooncol. 2016 Dec;130(3):591-599
pubmed: 27599828
Brain. 2005 Mar;128(Pt 3):678-87
pubmed: 15689365

Auteurs

Daniel F Fleischmann (DF)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Center for Clinical Research and Management Education, Division of Health Care Sciences, Dresden International University, Dresden, Germany.

Marcus Unterrainer (M)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Stefanie Corradini (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Maya Rottler (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Stefan Förster (S)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.

Christian la Fougère (C)

Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Timo Siepmann (T)

Center for Clinical Research and Management Education, Division of Health Care Sciences, Dresden International University, Dresden, Germany.
Department of Neurology, Carl Gustav Carus University Hospital, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Markus Schwaiger (M)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Peter Bartenstein (P)

German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Claus Belka (C)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Nathalie L Albert (NL)

German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Maximilian Niyazi (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH